First AES Symposium a “measured success” Part II

We continue with our visit to the first and only Amelia Earhart Symposium held and sponsored by the Amelia Earhart Society, in August 1993 in Morgan Hill, Calif., an event that AES founder Bill Prymak modestly labeled a “measured success.” 

Today we present the first-person account of the symposium proceedings as recorded by AES member Jo Ann Ridley, who, with Art Kennedy, co-authored High Times: Keeping ‘Em Flying: An Aviation Autobiography (1992)Boldface emphasis mine throughout; underline and caps emphasis author’s.

AUGUST 27-29, 1993”
By: Jo Ann Ridley

When Amelia Earhart failed to reach Howland Island during a 1937 attempt to fly around the world, her disappearance in the South Pacific created a mystery that after fifty-six years intrigues the American public nearly as much as the JFK assassination, and seems no closer to a solution.

But not for want of trying.  As 70 members of the Amelia Earhart Society heard during a recent members-only symposium in Morgan Hill, California, twin bills introduced by Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Inouye and Congresswoman Patsy Mink would declassify and transmit all relevant government records to the Library of Congress for public perusal.

Col. Rollin Reineck, USAF (Ret.), responsible for gaining the collective ear of his Hawaii congressional contingent, is suspicious of government protestations that all Earhart material has been released.  Major Joe Gervais, USAF (Ret.), after thirty-three years of investigation considered the deanof Earhart research, claims that until the United States government does release classified documents he believes still are kept hidden from view, the mystery of Earhart’s disappearance never will be solved.

During the three-day closed session in August, impressively accredited researchers took to the podium to offer persuasive and well-documented hypotheses about what really happened to Amelia Earhart, and why.  Not surprisingly, their theories are as diverse as their backgrounds.

A retired Pan American Airways radio man, recreating with charts her radio transmissions and presumed flight path, wondered why Earhart initially refused his airline’s offer to help track her across the Pacific.  A retired airline pilot totally committed to an assumption that Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan perished when they crashed in the ocean, pleaded for acceptance of the flyer’s last radio transmissions as evidence of the truth of her predicament and ultimate fate.  On the other hand, AES president, Bill Prymak, the Denver business man who has traveled the world and sailed the South Pacific with Gervais in pursuit of Earhart data, told of their encounter with “uncontaminated” Marshallese witnesses who confirmed published reports that Earhart and Noonan were captured by the Japanese.

A retired New York Police Department forensic expert presented a sheaf of government documents he says indicate that as early as 1923 Earhart had been selected by the U.S. military to participate in a secret Orange Planand was on a photo mission when she vanished.  Like Gervais, he believes Earhart returned to the United States after the war, but not as the Irene Bolam described in the book “Amelia Earhart Lives” by California writer Joe Klaas, based on material furnished by Gervais.

It was Klaas who related in spine-tingling detail the harassment he and Gervais experienced at the hands of minions of Howard Hughes, who Klaas intimated in his book may have provided the Japanese with a design for the Zero fighter in an attempt to gain Earhart’s release.  The harassment ended with Hughes’s death, but not before the powerful millionaire recluse sent the two a message to the effect that had it not been for their distinguished combat records in World War II, he’d have squashed you like bugs,to quote the Hughes messenger Klaas heard say it.  Thanks to efforts either of Hughes or the U. S. government and a cooperative publisher, Amelia Earhart Lives is virtually unobtainable today, with first editions fetching up to $100 a copy. 

[Editor’s note: Amelia Earhart Lives was republished by iUniverse in March 2000 and has been available ever since for a pittance on Amazon Not that I recommend it for casual readers, but the 1960 interviews by Operation Earhart operatives Gervais and Robert Dinger on Guam and Saipan were valuable contributions; otherwise the rest of AE Lives presents only bizarre and ridiculous speculation, and probably did more damage to honest Earhart research than any book ever published.]

Author Jo Ann Ridley, who teamed up with Art Kennedy to write High Times: Keeping ‘Em Flying: An Aviation Autobiography (1992).  Ridley passed away in 2010.  To read more about her life and work, please click here.  Photo by Joan Gould Winderman.

As if that weren’t enough on-the-spot intrigue, the final day of the symposium featured several witnesses to the possibility that Earhart, having survived capture and imprisonment when her country failed to extricate her from a mission of their own making, was quietly repatriated by an embarrassed U.S. government under the assumed identity of a New Jersey woman.

Julie Perch, whose father operates the famous aviation theme restaurant The Flying Lady,where the symposium took place under 120 model airplanes circling overhead, related her bizarre encounter with Irene Bolam in New York City in 1976.  For many, it was bizarre enough to force a conclusion that Bolam either was Earhart or, slightly confused, was afraid that she was.  The late Bolam’s best friend was a special guest at the Symposium and confirmed that she saw stacks of files in a closet marked AE, and that a silver hair brush set bore the initials AE.”  Bolam’s brother-in-law and his wife said they remembered an intelligent, classy lady who was a world traveler, had famous friends, and could talk knowledgeably about airplanes of the twenties and thirties.  But all agreed that if you dared to ask if she were Amelia Earhart, you were no longer her friend.  None would admit they thought Bolam was Amelia Earhart, but none of them would positively claim that she was not.  Photographs of both women elicited various opinions about a resemblance. 

[Editor’s note: Only the blind could see any resemblance between the slim, attractive, 5’8″ Earhart and the far shorter, stodgy Irene Bolam.  In late December 2015, I began a four-part analysis and overview of the entire Irene Bolam fraud.  If you’re new here or want to revisit one of the most ridiculous chapters of the Earhart saga, please click here for the entire series.]

The symposium ended on the following note: no solutions yet, but banding together presents a united front for the record in Earhart research.  More information constantly is being retrieved and someday the truth will be known.

The only unanimous conclusion during the sometimes hot and heavy debate was that The International Group For Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) did not find remains either of the Earhart Electra nor her belongings on Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island as claimed by its director Richard Gillespie.  Cited were independent reports from three former Lockheed employees who worked on the plane emphatically denying that a piece of the belly of an aircraft located by Gillespie could be from the Earhart Electra.  Nor was it possible that the size 9 shoe sole Gillespie offered as having belonged to the famed aviatrix actually was hers.  Earhart wore a size 6 shoe, which Gillespie already had been told by Lou Foudray, curator of the Amelia Earhart birth-home in Atchison, Kansas, before releasing the information. 

Amelia’s presence at the symposium was all the more palpable by the affectionate display of photographs taken by Albert Bresnik of Los Angeles, who was Earhart’s personal photographer and originally was slated to fly with her to record the journey.  Others among the intent participants, who came from all over the U.S., were several members of Ninety-Nines, the women flyers organization Amelia Earhart helped to establish.  Michelle Stauffer, a Kansas aircraft dealer and the first woman ever to fly a Russian SU-27 jet fighter, and Ann Pellegreno, who in 1967 successfully duplicated and completed Earhart’s 1937 flight represented two generations of women pilots devoted to Earhart’s memory.

Two more books about Earhart are due out within the next few months.  An anthology of eyewitness accounts assembled by Don Wilson of Rochester, New York, will be published in November under the title Amelia Earhart: Lost Legend.  Bloomsbury Publishing will bring out Lost Star: The Search for Amelia Earhart by Gervais associate Randall Brink in November.

End of Part II.


22 responses

  1. Thanks Mike- wish I had been more involved with the Earhart case back in 1993- I lived then as I do now in the east bay area and could easily have attended if, of course, I had been a member. I did attend an Elgin Long presentation at a museum outside the Oakland International Airport sometime in the 90s..never believed his hypothesis but wanted to hear what he had to say. I will definitely read your additional material on the Irene Bolam case. A pity, it would have been ver interesting to be a fly on the wall at this symposium.


  2. After reading the article, I read Art Kennedy’s Sensational Claims. He apparently thought, as do I, that AE was up to something besides a publicity flight> It almost had to be some kind of a spy operation, though even I felt motivated to debunk somewhat the overflight of the Marshalls to observe and spy speculation as improbable given what we are told. Bill Prymak seemed not to beliece the spy case, am I right? I have thought that one or two of the authors or researchers present might have been CIA/ONI plants. Was the ultimate purpose of the gathering maybe to neutralize inconvenient truths about her flight? To present many speculations so that no consensus could be reached? After all, the MSM was persuaded to joke about the group. Somebody was instigating the ridicule, why would they ignore a gathering such as this?

    I just started reading a book I had missed, “Kill Zone” by Craig Roberts. It makes for a “Gloomy Sunday” (remember that song?) It’s not only depressing about the JFK assassination but it ties that in to theVietnam War. The shenanigans are now so obvious it just confirms my darkest beliefs about the MIC. In fact it’s worse. I find it hard to accept the culture did a 180 turn in 20 years since the end of WW2. Or the 30 years since her flight. I suspect the same motives were present in WW2 or WW1 it was just that WW2 was a much more succssful presentation to the naive public that were disillusioned with WW1. One bizarre incident is that when the US forces needed lots of cement fortheir military operations, the most sensible thing to do was buy it from the No. Vietnamese. It was a win-win, tight? I suspect that in WW2 both sides profited from the war so why not put a banker in charge of the Navy? (Forrestal)

    How this ties in with Amelia’s disappearance I can’t say. Now, Bill Prymak sounds like an honorable guy. Did he believe the Mili Atoll landing scenario? Did he try to steer opinion in the AES into any particular direction? Did he believe she was merely lost. I have not kept track because I am busy with my other more important conspiracy theories.

    On this forum recently was a poster who was also disillusioned with recent US military advent adventures and he was shot down. I am very cynical about the purposes of wars as he was and this book makes me all the more skeptical about the innocence of her flight.

    All Best,



    1. David,

      Bill Prymak was among the leading proponents of the Mili Atoll landing scenario. During the course of more than 30 years of Earhart research, Prymak made three investigative visits to the Marshall Islands, in 1989, ’91 and ’97, locating and interviewing many previously unknown witnesses, including the famous Bilimon Amaron in 1989, though Prymak wasn’t the first to record Bilimon’s remarkable account.

      He never forced his views on others, and was remarkably tolerant in his dealings with all manner of fools and naysayers. He wasn’t a saint, but among the crowd of strange and often eccentric Earhart researchers, he stood out as a bastion of reason. This blog is an ongoing tribute to this fine man and his huge contributions to the Earhart saga.



  3. I was trying to avoid sounding like I was critical of Bill, but I guess I didn’t quite do it right. What I think I meant was his denial of a spy possibility the result of a mindset that in those days our government would never try such a sneaky maneuver? Knowing much more about the falsehoods and lies we get now ( learned since I started on this AE saga) that maybe Bill was unduly trusting of our wartime government? Especially back in 1993? Also, I may be paranoid, but isn’t it possible that te AE disinformation campaign was going on then? Not as heavy handed as nowadays, but still pretty obvious? I am probably trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.



    1. David,

      There is no question that the AE disinformation campaign was in full swing in 1993, as it had been since the very earliest days. Gillespie’s fraud was then four years old and going strong.

      As for Prymak, he probably did have more faith in the government than he should have had in the earlier years, and was clearly brought up in an atmosphere of trust. He learned over time that his trust was quite misplaced. But his thumbs down on the spy theory sprang from different roots, and from real evidence that he did trust, such as the plane’s dark signature never changing throughout the world flight.



    2. William H. Trail | Reply


      In one of your comments you mention disinformation. I would certainly consider Captain Laurance F. Safford’s book (with Cameron A. Warren and Robert R. Payne), “Earhart’s Flight Into Yesterday The Facts Without the Fiction (2003) Paladwr Press, as a masterwork of disinformation. Most likely, the U.S. Government did not ask Safford to to write it. Connected, and central to the Earhart saga as I believe he was, Safford elected to take on the task of writing this book on his own volition; what’s more, after learning of it, the Navy/USG sure didn’t discourage his efforts. I also think it is entirely possible that, when Safford died before finishing the book, the Navy ensured it’s completion and publication through Cameron Warren and Robert Payne — both gentlemen with connections to the Navy, and Robert Payne to Navy cryptography. Like the best of disinformation, “Earhart’s Flight Into Yesterday” is written by an authority, and is accurate and truthful — right up to the splashed and sank part.

      Also, consider the following. On the inside flap of the dust cover, there is a passage about Safford that reads, He enters the saturated arena of aviation literature with good credentials, having been a brilliant code and cypher analyst for the U.S. Navy. His work with Japanese code-breaking led him to an interest in the Earhart mystery, because of certain references to her, which he did not believe. The part about Safford’s having good credentials as a brilliant code and cypher analyst is certainly true enough. By all accounts he was. His service to the nation is inestimable. I dare say that the point could be made that Laurance Safford possibly won WWII in the Pacific, long before the event, by adopting Joseph J. Rochefort as a protege. Truly, Safford is deserving of every honor, accolade, and the thanks of a grateful nation.

      However, I also believe the statement that, “it was Safford’s work with Japanese code-breaking that led him to an interest in the so-called ‘Earhart mystery'” is disingenuous. I submit for your consideration that Safford’s work in breaking Japanese codes and in the closely related discipline of radio traffic analysis may be the very reason that AE and FN ultimately came to be in the Japanese Mandated Marshall Islands, and so too their subsequent capture and eventual death on Saipan. Granted, the intent was not for AE to land in the Marshalls, be captured by the Japanese, and die badly in their hands, but “she violated all orders.” Henry Morgenthau said so.

      I believe Safford wrote his book in an effort deflect the interested public’s attention away from the Japanese Capture/Death on Saipan truth and to conceal and protect the involvement of the U.S. Government in AE and FN’s loss. From the back of the dust-cover, ….”he [Safford] decided to analyze all the known information, and to effectively destroy the ‘conspiracy’ theories.” That’s an interesting turn of phrase, “destroy the conspiracy theories” — destroy. Not, “counter” the conspiracies, not “dispel” the conspiracies, not “debunk” the conspiracies, but to “destroy” the conspiracies. Words have meaning. “Destroy” is a pretty powerful word, and it’s use in this context, at least to me, is indicative of a powerful intent, a determined resolve to protect a terrible secret at all costs.

      Safford was protecting a terrible secret he’d been deeply involved with from it’s inception. His work would also protect the image of the U.S. Navy as a whole, and the Navy’s cryptographic element in particular. Cui Bono?

      The blurb on the back of the dust-cover continues “….He [Safford] died before he finished his book and the executor of his estate was directed to deposit the unfinished manuscript in the trash. Fortunately, it was retrieved and now, faithfully reviewed and edited by Cam Warren and Bob Payne, thus enters the public domain in the pages of this book.” Now, does anyone really believe that Messrs. Warren and Payne just happened along, found Safford’s unpublished manuscript on top of the curb-side trash, retrieved it, and published it just like that? If you do there’s some swamp land in Florida that’s ripe for development that you may be interested in.

      I won’t speculate here, but simply offer that, even if Safford was not writing his book at the behest of the USG, it was looked upon by the powers that be with favor, and at his death there was an interest in seeing the work completed and published as an authoritative counter to Goerner, Briand, Prymak, et al. Enter Warren and Payne to finish it.

      All best,



      1. William,

        Very well stated, your comment is five years too late to be included in Truth at Last. I missed the operative phrase you cite on the book’s back cover that describes Safford’s motivation, “to effectively destroy the ‘conspiracy’ theories,” but on page 179 in TAL in a lengthy footnote, I briefly point out some of the deceit and disinformation Safford and/or the co-authors presented in this book.

        All Best,


      2. William, I get Safford and Rafford mixed up. i don’t think I have Safford’s book. I was a little surprised that our government took such interest in AES meetings to discredit them. I think you’re saying that Safford, being a code geek, would have known about AE & FN capture and chose to discredit the capture theory in a book. Is that right? Or destroy the conspiracy theories anyway. Maybe it’s as simple as protecting FDR’s re-election. But the book was written after FDR died, wasn’t it? Why does the disinfo continue? I notice it has died down in the last year, maybe they have moved on to doing pandemic disinfo?


      3. William H. Trail


        Captain Laurance Frye Safford, USN (22 October 1893 – 15 May 1973) is regarded as “The Father of Naval Cryptography” and the man who developed and organized the Navy’s OP-020-G (now Naval Security Group). Hardly a “code geek.” Paul Rafford was a Pan American Airways (PAA) radio operator on PAA’s flying boats who, as a radio expert, later worked for NASA and was well known and respected throughout the Earhart research community for his work in analyzing all aspects of AE’s radios and radio transmissions. Other than similar sounding last names, it’s hard to confuse the two.

        Of course Safford absolutely knew about AE and FN’s capture by the Japanese. No doubt in my mind. And, I believe Safford discredits the Japanese Capture/Death on Saipan TRUTH because, as I believe, it was at the Navy’s behest that AE and FN flew that final leg from Howland Island toward the Marshall Islands. It’s not inconceivable that the plan for AE and FN to fly toward, and “get lost” by ditching near the Marshalls originated and was devised by Safford himself. I don’t believe Safford was seeking to protect himself, and I don’t believe he was worried about FDR’s image. Not at all. But I do believe he was seeking to protect the secret of an extremely sensitive naval intelligence operation (not a “spy flight”) targeting Imperial Japan codes/communications involving a couple of US civilians (one of whom was a worldwide celebrity) that didn’t go as planned. Safford was also loyally protecting the U.S. Navy’s image vis-a-vis it’s involvement in AE and FN’s loss. To accomplish his goal, it was necessary for Safford to “destroy” theories getting too close to the truth.

        Keep in mind the message from Admiral Nimitz conveyed through the recently retired Commander John Pillsbury, who made it known to Fred Goerner that, he [Goerner] “was on the right track with his Amelia Earhart investigation.” “Something tremendous was behind the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Frederick Noonan in 1937.” And, “Admiral Nimitz wants you to continue, and he says that you’re on to something that will stagger your imagination.”

        Now, lest I be pilloried for not having my facts straight or, worse yet, being deliberately deceptive, let me clarify something. Not appreciating the value of it, Safford’s widow and only surviving heir consigned his unfinished manuscript to a trash barrel in Washington, DC, at the site of an auction of his physical estate. Robert Frey and Elgen Long, who were present, retrieved it. Cameron Warren and Robert Payne obtained the manuscript from Frey and Long. This is a very close paraphrase taken directly from the foreword to Safford’s book. However, there is nothing whatsoever in the foreword about how Messrs. Warren and Payne came to know that Frey and Long had the manuscript. It raises questions. For one, who contacted whom? What caused Frey and Long to transfer the manuscript from their possession to that of Warren and Payne? Was it a gift? Was it purchased? What? They left that part out. Whatever it was, Warren and Payne nonetheless produced an incredible finished product. It’s a great book — right up to splashed and sank.

        I don’t believe the U.S. Navy/U.S. Government did anything to discredit the Amelia Earhart Society (AES). The USG does protect it’s interests. And, until the the operation that led to the loss of AE and FN is fully declassified, it will remain protected. Why does the secrecy, and disinformation, remain after nearly 84 years? Who knows? Maybe it’s because the secret around AE and FN’s loss is linked, no matter how tenuously, to an even greater secret.

        All best,



      4. William, I apologize, I was being a little facetious. However, I was not aware of Safford’s role at all. I have read your opinion that AE was sent close to Jap territory to elicit their response in code so that the Navy could improve their capabilities. If that was the case, then Safford could have had a plausible hand in her itinerary. I also like your speculation that AE might have had a role in an even greater secret that might even color American’s opinion of the War itself. I have often thought the same thing, but since sophisticated readers (like me) subscribe to Smedley Butler’s opinion that “War is a Racket.”

        Why should WW2 be any different? So what could possibly be the shocking reality that can’t be revealed? We are little surprised by anything. Maybe it can’t be revealed to the general public, but hasn’t our imagination been staggered a few times already? In “Kill Zone” by Craig Roberts, I learned, I think, of the outrageous deception of the JFK assassination and promotion of the Vietnam War which was immensely profitable to many participants often at the expense of the soldiers on the battlefield. So what? Business as usual. We can now see that, in that conflict, victory was irrelevant.

        Now, since Mike allows me to write this stuff, here I go again. This theory never seems to achieve takeoff speed and gets shot down usually. We have all read of the heartwarming friendship of Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia. How she took Eleanor in her plane, had sleepovers at the White House and possibly other outings. They were very fond of each other. In my understanding, FDR and Eleanor were not particularly close. Without speculating on graphic details here, what if FDR became jealous of the situation and decided to retaliate? What if he cooked up some cockamamie mission for Amelia and then informed the Japs of what she was going to do? This would give the Japs plenty of time to mount a response and “catch Amelia red handed.”

        Even though the Japs normally had very little defensive capabilities against overflights, maybe with the “heads up” they managed to force her to land. FDR’s apparent expression of satisfaction when he learned of her capture would be consistent with this scenario. Was he this mean? I wouldn’t be the least surprised . He was certainly capable of sacrificing 1000s of American lives to get the war going (Pearl Harbor) so what would the life of Amelia matter to him? Maybe Morgenthau’s little speech, “She disobeyed all orders” was just a further part of promoting the deception for his boss. Oh, maybe there was loads of intelligence gathered by this gambit, even better. They sacrificed a pawn. So there you have it, take it or leave it.

        All Best,


      5. William H. Trail


        As Mike himself once put it, “Safford’s shadow looms large over the Earhart saga.” I agree. To my mind, he is the eminence grise behind the loss of AE and FN. Ask yourself, where else could the idea of using AE in a U.S. Naval Intelligence operation targeting Imperial Japanese codes and radio communications have originated? The only answer that makes any sense is Laurance Frye Safford and OP-020-G.

        Please note very carefully that I did not say that AE “might have had a role in an even greater secret.” I said, “Maybe it’s because the secret around AE and FN’s loss is linked, no matter how tenuously, to an even greater secret.” I’m not playing word games. There’s a big difference. Put another way, were the full details of the U.S Government’s, specifically the Navy’s, role in the loss of AE and FN to be declassified and made public, it might raise additional questions the USG would find awkward and would rather not have to answer. I don’t know, and I’m not speculating. All I am saying is that it’s simply a possibility for consideration.

        The Roosevelts were not close. They were what we’d call today a “power couple.” They remained married out of mutual necessity as well as for appearances, but they were not close. In 1918, while FDR was an Assistant Secretary of the Navy in Woodrow Wilson’s administration, and after fourteen years of marriage, Eleanor discovered that Franklin was engaged in a long-term extra-marital affair with her very own social secretary, Lucy Mercer. Eleanor did not take it well. In Eleanor’s own words, it was “devastating.” FDR nonetheless would go on to have a number of other affairs before his death in 1945. Now, I absolutely will NOT speculate on the nature of AE’s friendship with Eleanor Roosevelt. But, given the nature of Eleanor and Franklin’s relationship, it’s entirely possible that he didn’t care a wit for anything or anyone except for how it or they might effect his presidency, his image, and public opinion.

        It is entirely possible that, for any number of reasons, FDR just plain didn’t like AE. Who knows? I seriously can’t believe that he was “jealous” in any way of Eleanor and AE’s friendship. As I said, for FDR it was all about his presidency, his image, pubic opinion, and especially getting reelected in 1940. He viewed things through that lens. The idea that FDR could be jealous of AE and retaliated against her by cooking up some “cockamamie mission” for her as you put it, and then informing the Japanese of what she was going to do is simply not realistic. Now, do heads of state get rid of inconvenient people? Of course they do. A classic example from the Bible is King David and Uriah. Had FDR wanted to be rid of AE or anyone else permanently, there were other, quicker, simpler, more efficient ways to do it without involving Imperial Japan and the potential of an international crisis.

        My main interest, my focus, is first, foremost, and always AE. But, since you brought up the JFK assassination, I’ll just offer this. When conducting an investigation or inquiry, the investigator must look at the act perpetrated and ask, “Cui Bono?” Who benefits? Then you look for who had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to commit the crime. From all I have read and learned of JFK’s assassination, the genesis, the spark, was Sam Giancanna and The Chicago Outfit with the willing and enthusiastic cooperation and participation of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia chief of New Orleans. All others who would have benefited from JFK’s death either materially contributed to the assassination, or they stayed out of the way, kept quiet, and didn’t interfere. Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO was indeed set up to be the patsy and was not the lone gunman) was a classic Mafia move. The Warren Commission and it’s report is a farce. Napoleon Bonaparte was correct when he said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

        All best,



      6. William,
        I think we do agree on your statement about there being a larger issue possibly involved. I’m not saying that AE was involved in the “larger” issue herself. Hardly. But perhaps if her sceret files were opened it might reveal some awkward to explain action the USG promulgated which might then call into question the whole rationale of the US involvement in another world war. For an example, the Japanese might be revealed to have been much more conciliatory before any war was considered and the US might be shown to be much more the aggressor at the time.

        I know my speculation might be considered unrealistic and a bit outrageous. My excuse for putting it forward might be that I’m getting older and my curiosity about what comments I will get and how I will be shot down outweighs my earlier circumspection.

        I will cite FDR’s remarks when he learns of AE’s capture (if they are real) as showing great satisfaction with her fate and relief she is out of his picture. What would be a plausible reason for his distaste for her? Was it Eleanor that pleaded with him to supply her a landing field in mid-Pacific and not really “strategic considerations?” Did AE learn too much about some nefarious plan of FDR and threaten to reveal it? Could she have actually deliberately flown to Mili Atoll with some kind of a truce offer? I know, a strange place to ditch her plane if that were the case. But then, why were the Japs initially quite taken with her? At least some of them, apparently. Did she wind up as one of the Tokyo Roses?

        I have read enough in recent years to know you don’t have to go back to Biblical times to come up with political enemies that were eliminated. It happens all the time in this country, doesn’t matter which party is in power. I wish I could recall the story better but I remember some poor woman eyewitness in the Las Vegas shooting who gave the wrong testimony and when she wouldn’t shut up about what she had seen, she was soon quickly eliminated. But that’s an irrelevant minor incident.

        I know this blog is about AE, but to get back to JFK, there is a much more clear cut example of the real power elite at work. How did Sam Giancana benefit from the JFK assassination? Yeah, he had helped get the old man Joe out of a jam with the Purple Gang back in the 20s I guess and he helped JFK with some ballot shenanigans in Chicago, and maybe he expected some gratitude not persecution by Bobby. I don’t think SAm got diddley squat for his very minor role in the assassination. He did supply a couple shooters maybe, but he and some other gangsters were just dupes. I forget what LBJ said about why he brought in the Mafia, maybe just to further confuse the whole scenario, but he did have his reasons. Giancana wouldn’t have had the resources to pull off such a large operation as the assassination of a president. There were dozens of participants plus the MSM to pay off for their non-investigation, it’s a big list.

        I would have to say the big beneficiaries were LBJ, the CIA and the military industrial complex. The extent of LBJ’s role is debatable, whether he was the mastermind or not, but he sure was in on it. I find the story intriguing even as new details still come out. One part I find fascinating is that while there were a many as 8-10 shooters, none hit JFK fatally and he would have probably lived, except that one of Nicoletti’s men hit him with the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll. One shot, but it was accurate.
        Sorry, I digress.

        All Best.


      7. David– Who was the woman to whom you referred re the Las Vegas shooting?

        All– It has been stated often enough that Amelia and Fred were the first U.S. casualties of WWII. They might not have been the very first but certainly were two of the earliest. The big secret the USG is hiding is what was known about the Japanese intention to attack Pearl Harbor in the days, weeks, and months before the attack. Would it shock anyone to know that the U.S. Navy tracked IJN Air Fleet One as it proceeded out of home waters under the guise of a fleet training exercise to be conducted in the waters south of the home islands but subsequently steamed east to the point from which the attack was launched? The technology and infrastructure used to do that was in its nascent phase but operating at the time of the second RTW attempt. To fully reveal what the U.S. Navy knew about the fate of Amelia and Fred would open a much bigger can of worms which they never want to do.

        Contrary to what we now call fake news it was not a sleepy Sunday morning at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. 1941. All U.S. forces in the Pacific were on a 24 hour war warning. The carriers Yorktown and Enterprise which had been busy delivering aircraft to distant bases were much in need of replenishing in the days immediately prior to the attack. The ships were only permitted to put in to Pearl Harbor one at a time and strictly limited to 24 hours to do as much as possible. It wasn’t a lucky accident that the carriers weren’t at Pearl Harbor the morning of the attack.


      8. CDA-

        To find who that woman was is probably not possible. The You Tube videos seemed to have disappeared, at least finding anything specific years later is difficult at best. I remember when I heard the first breathless reports of the shooting on the MSM my first thought was that what they were saying was simply not possible, and that largely was confirmed by later reports and YT videos.

        I’m not a miitary expert and have no experience in mass shootings so I’m just an armchair commentator. That woman witnessed something that contradicted the official narrative and she was quickly zapped. Just like that poor deputy in Dallas who was on the search of the school book depository and saw that they had planted the wrong rifle, they found a Mauser, not Oswald’s supposed gun and he wouldn’t shut up about it so they shut him up by eventually killing him, I think.

        Most of what I learned about Pearl Harbor was from “Day of Deceit” which makes a very plausible case for what you were just saying. Even as a kid (born 1942) I heard people saying that FDR planned the whole operation. And even nowadays any sophisticated politician knows what “needing a new Pearl Harbor” means in the sense of a fabulously successful False Flag attack.

        What the Las Vegas shooting was all about or the purpose of it remains a mystery at least to me. It certainly was not a “lone gunman” here again it was a fairly big operation needing the resources of big government. Didn’t Putin say that about 9/11? Trump certainly knows what happened and Giuliani was in on it in a big way. I have learned a lot about it from Rebekah Roth’s books, I believe there is a lot of true inside info in them.

        Having said that, I am on the lookout for a dark sedan pulling up in front of my house and a visit from the Men in Black. Don’t see them yet.


      9. William H. Trail


        I have Robert B. Stinnett’s “Day of Deceit,” and I think it makes a very good case that there was ample warning of the impending attack. However, if it is the only book you’ve read on the topic of Pearl Harbor, there are a few others you might consider. Walter Lord’s “Day of Infamy” Henry Holt & Co. (1957) is a classic. Gordon W. Prange’s “At Dawn We Slept” McGraw-Hill (1981) is the gold standard. Another is John Toland’s “Infamy Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath” Doubleday & Company (1982). For a tactical understanding of the attack, I highly recommend “Pearl Harbor 1941 The Day of Infamy” by Carl Smith Osprey Publishing (2001). It’s one of Osprey’s Campaign Series, and is, as are all Osprey publications, excellent. Last, but certainly not least, I highly recommend “A Matter Of Honor Pearl Harbor: Betrayal, Blame, And A Family’s Quest For Justice” by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, HarperCollins (2016).

        All best,



      10. William,
        Thanks for the list. I don’t know if any of those books dispute “The Day of Deceit” but I will see if I can find out. Something tells me they don’t go along with it. I tend to believe the premise of that book, it fits with my world view. I am not a student of WW2 or any war. I’ll see if I can find the Walter Lord book, I liked his Titanic book.


      11. William H. Trail


        If one listens to and reads only those things that support their pre-conceived “world view” how is one then to discern the truth? Not a homily, just a thought.

        All best,



      12. William,
        Your point is well taken, and some subjects I am interested in, I do read about several viewpoints. When it came to AE, I initially stumbled on Ric Gillespie and his viewpoint and forum. Something about him and his accomplice Tom King didn’t seem quite right, though. On Google Earth I thought I had discovered a plane wreck in the water near Nonouti I. I got so wound up, I was going on a trip to New Zealand anyway and found it was possible to get there so I could see for myself.

        I thought I would be a hero to discover her plane. However, the logistics were intimidating, involved like 5 day layovers on godforsaken islands and as I hesitated I discovered Mike’s book TTAL. When I finished it, I knew it was indeed the truth, or as close as I was going to get to it. I abandoned my scheme to head to Nonouti, whatever twin engine plane of the same size as hers it was, well, not hers, apparently.

        After becoming a TTAL fan, Mike recommended to me “The Day of Deceit” and when I read that, I came to see why certain articles I had read cast some doubt on the official story. Also, as a kid I had a few times heard adults proclaim that FDR set it all up, or words to that effect.As a kid, I didn’t know what they were talking about. Then I knew. The book made it all fit. I suppose I could read a few books that might give a completely opposite view, that it was a total surprise and shock to FDR. I have heard that all my life.

        After reading that book, and reading about the code breaking, I’m not likely to have my mind changed. Mike got me started reading other books that are contrary to the MSM view.Then Irealized that fables about some events,assassinations, bombings, various shootings, the public is persuaded to believe in events that contradict physics and that are in general physically impossible. So I have decided not to believe in MSM stories that are contradictory and impossible. That makes me an outcast with some of my pals. So, if taking this worldview is wrong, then I am guilty of it.

        Mike and TTAL helped to open my eyes. I have read most of the AE books (not Safford’s) but reading a book these days, I can’t help but looking at it through my world view which I have acquired in my 70+ years with mostly an open mind. Do any of those books you mentioned openly refute “The Day of Deceit?”

        All Best,


  4. Captain Safford, USN

    One of the first books I read about Earhart was the book, “Earhart’s Flight into Yesterday”. allegedly written by Safford. I have a hardback copy so page numbers may be different. Today we would call what Warren and Payne wrote ‘fake news’. In no way do I cast aspersions on Safford. He is my hero. Unfortunately, Safford is no longer here to defend himself.

    I cannot defeat Warren and Payne because they have the professional aura of having special access to information. Totally bogus.

    To begin, the story that the manuscript was found in the trash bin of the estate sale after Safford’s death sounds ridiculous. There have been various estimates of the size of the manuscript from 130 to 150 pages. So which one is the ‘true’ one and how is that determined?

    The introduction, by Robert M. Stanley, presents either a mystery or just plain ignorance. His document is dated 1971. He highlights the successes of Safford. I am baffled that Stanley does seem to be aware that Safford obtained his raw material for cryptanalysis from radio intelligence. On page xvii, third paragraph, he states, “Remember, this was 1937, radar did not exist, electronic snooping had never been dreamed of.” What is his basis for making such a statement? Yardley’s “American Black Chamber” had been published in 1913.

    There is no clear separation between Safford’s statements in his manuscript and the text prepared by Warren and Payne. Warren and Payne just continue with their version of the story that Safford begins, or they fabricate a new version. Little attempt at designating who is saying what.

    My own opinion of why this was not published by Safford is that he knew classified information existed about the fate of Earhart. He could not fully tell the truth about Earhart without this information. He would have to obtain clearance for his book from the government. He did not want to begin that process which he knew would result in no clearance for his manuscript.

    My basis for this opinion is that I did not see anywhere in the book a discussion of Japanese military or civilian radio stations in this part of the world. Did he know they existed? Without a doubt.

    Safford was a diligent researcher. The next deficiency I saw is Exhibit No. 1 Records relating to Amelia Earhart. I could find not anything in this list which mentions NARA RG 38 (Record Group 38). This is the group which contains the radio intelligence for a long period of time including 1936 to 1939. I believe Safford would have to discuss a lot material from this group in order to tell the truth about Earhart. This is where the censors would have halted his manuscript. A lot of it is not yet declassified and there are many researchers with FOIA requests meeting brick walls.

    My previous post mentioned that I would provide information about Japanese radio intelligence. I will provide the text of a declassified document sent from the IJN in Tokyo to the Naval Attaché in the Japanese Embassy in Washington. It is short and to the point. The text mentions intelligence reports concerning Earhart. Where did these reports come from? My guess is from Japanese units in the area, perhaps the Marshall Islands. “Since it is believed she went down in the vicinity of the Marshall Islands area…” They would not make idle comments about this. They might lie, as we also did about it, but a highly classified message from one office in Tokyo to their office in Washington, not likely.

    The text is transcribed here. I will post the original in my Dropbox for anyone interested to see the original.
    TO : Naval Attaché, Washington.
    5 July, 1937. #339_
    We are in receipt of intelligence reports to the effect
    that the U.S.Navy is launching upon a large scale search for the
    lost Miss Earhart. Since it is believed that she went down in the
    vicinity of the MARSHALL ISLANDS area, the Government of the South
    Sea Islands has ordered all ships, (lookouts?), and communication
    facilities to cooperate in the discovering of her. (We?) of this country
    also have communicated our desires to assist in this search, through
    our Ambassador in Washington, to the U.S. Government.

    This offer was made not only as an expression of good
    will, but for the purpose of preventing the United States’ merchant
    and fighting vessels which are searching for Miss Earhart, from coming
    too close to the Marshall Islands.
    Authority 003003
    *Chief of the Bureau of Military Affairs, Navy Dept.
    N(7-_____) TOKYO to N>A> Washington 7/5/37.
    Trans. 12/15/38. “

    This is all I can prepare for now. I am in the process of putting some lengthy documents in my Dropbox. They concern pre-WWII intelligence in the South Pacific area from a few sources here on Guam. When I am finished I will post a notice on the blog, with Mike’s permission, on how to access them.

    On a slightly different topic I have some oral histories concerning Pearl Harbor. The particular one I am most sure of is from Ralph Briggs, a Navy CPO working for Safford, who actually copied the ‘Winds’ message. He was never called to testify, after all an enlisted man at that time could not be relied on to help twist the truth. It is very detailed. I will load it on Drop Box also for anyone interested. Better yet, it is not so big that I could email it to anyone interested.

    Tony Gochar


    1. Thanks for this information, which is quite revealing and important, and something that Vincent V. Loomis apparently missed in his Tokyo investigations — a July 5, 1937 Japanese document that basically states without confirming that AE went down in the Marshalls.

      By all means you can send your drop box information here for anyone who wishes to access it.

      Your invaluable contributions are most appreciated!



    2. William H. Trail | Reply


      I’m very much looking forward to reading what you’re putting together!

      All best,



  5. Greetings to All
    I am providing titles of items I have in my Dropbox. They may be of interest readers of this blog. Make a request to and I will share the item with you.

    The document, “IJN to Naval Attaché Wash July 5, 1937” was included with the History Channels story on the lost evidence. I don’t remember if the significance of it was discussed. I do believe it is very significant. I used the wrong date for the publication of Yardley’s “American Black Chamber”. It was published in 1931, not 1913 as I had noted it.

    1. AK Report 11-20
    2. Ballendorf US Intel in the Mandates
    3. Thesis 11-20
    4. IJN to Naval Attaché Wash July 5, 1937
    5. Navy Knew 1933 AK History
    6. Period Between the Wars
    7. Ralph Briggs Oral History

    These papers are some of the research I have done here. There are some things I disagree with. But, if I can offer some explanation of what is there I will try.
    Enjoy. Tony Gochar


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: