Longtime reader Ken McGhee livened up an uneventful day recently when he informed me about a Sept. 9 Coast to Coast AM story, “Earhart Mural in Malaysia Gets Panned” that repeated a Sept. 5 Yahoo! News article in its own dependably despicable style. The story describes the recent painting of a huge mural depicting Amelia Earhart and her Electra on the outside of a public jail at Taiping, Malaysia, where Earhart reportedly stopped for fuel on her way to Singapore during her 1937 world flight attempt. (Boldface and italic emphasis mine throughout.):
During her now-infamous 1937 attempt at circumnavigating the globe which ultimately led to her disappearance, the legendary pilot stopped at the city’s airport for a day to refuel her plane. Much to the chagrin of those in Taiping who don’t consider the event to be all that significant, the brief moment when Earhart came to town is what is being memorialized in the mural.
Never one to miss an opportunity to throw dirt on the truth, Coast to Coast showed its stripes by drawing a false parallel to the Earhart Memorial Monument movement on Saipan, never checking the validity of the claim in the Malaysia story in its eagerness to misinform its readers about the Earhart disappearance whenever possible:
Taiping is not the only Earhart tribute to become a community concern as debate continues to rage in Saipan over plans to build a huge statue of the aviator whose only connection to the area are rumors that she ultimately landed there.
What “rumors” that Earhart “ultimately landed” on Saipan is Coast to Coast referencing? George Noory and his disinfo claque aren’t interested or well-read enough to be referring to Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident, in which author Thomas E. Devine’s claimed that Earhart flew directly from Lae to Saipan, an idea rejected by all serious Earhart researchers. This leaves Paul Briand Jr.’s original erroneous claim found in the recently discussed “Daughter of the Sky,” knowledge of which is also beyond Coast to Coast’s pay grade, though someone on their staff might have read my recent post. Most likely, it’s just Coast to Coast being incompetent, confusing and contrary, its usual practice in all things Earhart.
The original story, “Taiping’s latest mural of aviator Amelia Earhart draws online criticism,” came by way of the
Taiping’s latest mural depicting the first female aviator to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean, Amelia Earhart, has not gone down well with some people online.
Many have gone to the Taiping Municipal Council’s (MPT) official Facebook page to question the rationale behind the drawing.
The American had made a refueling stopover at Tekah Airport on June 7, 1937 before continuing her journey to Singapore and New Guinea in her attempt to circumnavigate the globe.
“As I look into this further, some strange things come up,” McGhee wrote in an email. “In the news article from Malaysia, they say she was in Taiping on June 7 to refuel. According to history books, she was in Natal in South America on June 7. Also in the history books, her route did not take her to Taiping, but to Singapore on June 21. Some error checking is needed here. When was she in Taiping? If at all? Something is not right, but I’m not sure what it is . . . Funny how nobody checks the facts on this. And Tekah is not that far from Singapore. If they went to Tekah Airport to refuel, they would not have needed to stop in Singapore.”
None of the maps or books I’ve checked contain any reference to Earhart stopping at Taiping, in 1937 or any other time. Thus far, the only source I’ve been able to find for the claim that Earhart stopped to refuel at Taiping has been Wikipedia’s Taiping Airport entry:
The airport also achieved fame through the famous American aviator, Amelia Earhart in 1937, when she was doing her world flight and made a stopover at the Taiping Airport for refueling. Amelia Earhart was flying between Thailand and Singapore and permission to land at Taiping Airport was granted on 7 June 1937 by the then Resident-General of Malaya.
Wikipedia offers no footnotes or citations for this claim, leaving us to speculate where it could have come from. I can’t find email addresses for the two artists or reporter Sylvia Looi, either, and have a language problem with the Majlis Perbandaran Taiping Facebook page.
Hoping to find some clarity, I turned to what most would consider the definitive source — the first-person record of Earhart’s world flight, at least of events leading up to the fliers’ June 30 arrival at Lae. What could more authoritative than Amelia’s own book, Last Flight, published in 1937 by Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., which I have in a first edition, without her signature, of course.
Below is a scan of the top of page 204, Last Flight, Amelia’s account of her departure from Bangkok, Siam (now Thailand), on June 21, 1937.
The next four paragraphs present Amelia’s impressions of her flight to Singapore, with phrases like: “A county of green mountains opened before us”; “charming towns which looked from the air much like those at home”; and “the fields and valleys were upholstered with a deep-green jungle in an unbelievably continuous covering made by separate trees.”
Nowhere does Earhart mention Taiping or its airport, and she soon gets to the fliers’ arrival at Singapore:
Mary Lovell’s The Sound of Wings is among the best of all the Earhart biographies (see p. 302 for the critical section), but it also offers nary a word about Taiping or its airport. Lovell’s source is also Last Flight, according to the book’s notes, but if Last Flight can’t be considered definitive, what can?
Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune, the above map of Earhart’s world flight shows no stops between Bangkok and Singapore, June 20-21, 1937. So where did these two Malaysian muralists get the idea that Amelia stopped there with Fred Noonan and her Electra?
If we’re to clear up this little mystery, we need some help. Your ideas are welcome.
Now that the establishment’s latest phony effort to find Amelia Earhart’s plane as far away as possible from where it’s buried on Saipan has ended, I think a review of the true history of the search for Amelia is appropriate. (Boldface emphasis mine throughout.)
Most informed observers of the history of research into the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan believe that Fred Goerner’s The Search for Amelia Earhart is the seminal work in the genre, and all that followed sprang from the San Francisco radio-newsman’s initial Saipan forays. But neither Goerner nor anyone else would have ever heard about Earhart and Noonan’s arrival at Saipan in 1937 if not for the 1960 book that started it all — Daughter of the Sky, by Paul L. Briand, Jr., a Ph.D., captain (later promoted to major) and assistant professor of English at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.
I never met Briand, who was born in 1920 and died in 1986, to ask him definitively, but it appears that Daughter of the Sky was conceived and written as another Earhart biography, this one by an aviation expert and co-editor of The Sound of Wings (not the biography by Mary Lovell), an anthology of flying literature published in 1957. We must assume, based on its presentation, that as the book neared completion, Briand was informed of new material that he shoehorned into Daughter’s closing pages, information that changed everything about the Earhart disappearance.
Since few readers have a copy of Daughter of the Sky, I think it’s instructive to re-present its closing pages, for those interested in something more substantial than the latest failed searches and incoherent dispatches about native bones found and lost on a central Pacific atoll circa 1940.
In the last of its three parts, “The Last Flight,” Daughter of the Sky distinguished itself from all previous Earhart literature. In its next-to-last chapter, “The Fog of Rumors,” an apparently unconvinced Briand introduced the “great rumor” that Earhart and Noonan had been prisoners of the Japanese, attributing this idea “largely” to the 1943 Hollywood film Flight for Freedom, a red herring starring Rosalind Russell and Fred MacMurray, and speculation by Dr. M.L. Brittain of Georgia Tech, who had been onboard USS Lexington during the Earhart search, that the fliers became prisoners of the Japanese.
Here Briand presented some helpful information as well, noting Amy Otis Earhart’s claim that “her daughter was on a secret government mission and that she was captured by the Japanese,“ but writing that Mrs. Earhart had no “official basis” for making such as statement. For more on that story, please click here. Briand also cited the March 1944 Associated Press article, “Putnam Flight Yarn Revived,” by Eugene Burns that introduced the fishing boat pickup and Marshall Islands landing scenario that Elieu Jibambam had initially shared with Navy Lieutenants Eugene T. Bogan, Bill Bauer and Jimmy Toole (see Truth at Last pages 130-131). Burns’ story was buried in newspapers where it appeared at all, and was largely ignored.
Astute readers will note several discrepancies in Briand’s narrative of Josephine Blanco’s eyewitness account as reported by Navy dentist Casimir R. Sheft to him and later findings by Fred Goerner and others; after all, the book was published in 1960, so we’re talking circa 1959 that Briand was made privy to Sheft’s revelations.
Very little of substance was known at that time, but the key event, Josephine’s 1937 sighting of the American fliers at Saipan’s Tanapag Harbor, is presented in stark detail by the Air Force Academy English professor as Sheft related it to him, and thus the true modern search for Amelia Earhart was quietly launched. Very few were even aware of it, as the revelations in Daughter of the Sky were suppressed throughout the establishment media. Following are the closing pages of Paul Briand Jr.’s Daughter of the Sky.
9. “The Light of Fact: A Mystery Solved?”
Two additional events, however, separate in time and both involving Amelia Earhart — but heretofore never interrelated — do fit together in a logical and revealing pattern. All the pieces of the puzzle are not available, but there are enough of them to form a discernible picture.
At the end of World War II Jacqueline Cochran, then head of the WASPS, the famous organization of women ferry pilots, was asked by General Hap Arnold to go to Tokyo and investigate the role that Japanese women had played in aviation during the war. While she was in Imperial Air Force Headquarters Miss Cochran noticed that there were numerous files on American aviation notables — and many filed on Amelia Earhart.
These documents since that time have mysteriously disappeared. They are not in the official custody of the United States Government, or any of its departments, services, or agencies; nor do they seem to be in the possession of the Japanese Government. (All captured documents, those of historical importance having been copied on microfilm, have been returned to Tokyo. No AE files were discovered among the captured materials.) Nevertheless, these files seem to indicate that the Japanese had more than a normal interest in Amelia Earhart, because of another event that happened, curiously, again in the Marianas. This new evidence has never before been made public.
At the end of the war on the island of Saipan a Navy dentist worked with his assistant, a native girl named Josephine Blanco. It was 1946. Dr. Casimir R. Sheft, now practicing in New Jersey, was taking a break between appointments and talking with a fellow dentist. During the conversation Dr. Sheft casually mentioned the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and speculated about whether the famous flier could have ended her flight in the Marianas, and possibly near Saipan, for he had read somewhere that the Marines had found AE’s flight log during the invasion (actually, it had been the photograph album). Suddenly his dental assistant, Josephine, broke in: She had seen an American woman flier many years ago — nine or ten — on Saipan, when she was a little girl. The American woman wore khaki clothes and had hair cut like a man. . . .
Josephine Blanco, now Mrs. Maximo Akiyama, and living in California with her husband and their young son, was witness to an incident which is as incredible as it is enlightening,
In the summer of 1937 Josephine was riding her bicycle toward Tanapag Harbor. She was taking her Japanese brother-in-law, J.Y. Matsumoto, his lunch, and was hurrying along because it was nearly twelve o’clock.
That summer she had just finished Japanese grammar school, where she had gone for the last five years, ever since she was seven years old. In March she had celebrated her eleventh birthday, and now she could begin Catholic school. She was looking forward to studying with the Spanish missionary sisters. Father Tadzio had hoped that someday Josephine, too, like some of the other Chamorro native girls in the Marianas, would answer Gods call and become a native sister.
Josephine had a special pass to the Japanese military area near the harbor. Not even Japanese civilians were admitted to the area unless they carried the proper credentials. The young girl rode up to the gate, stopped her bicycle, and presented her pass. The guard allowed her into the restricted area.
On the way to meet her brother-in-law, Josephine heard an airplane flying overhead. She looked up and saw a silver two-engine plane. The plane seemed to be in trouble, for it came down low, headed out into the harbor, and belly-landed on the water.
It was not until she met her brother-in-law that Josephine discovered whom it was that had crash landed in the harbor.
“The American woman,” everyone was saying, greatly excited. “Come and see the American woman.” Josephine and her brother in-law joined the knot of people who gathered to watch.
She saw the American woman standing next to a tall man wearing a short-sleeved sports shirt, and was surprised because the woman was not dressed as a woman usually dressed. Instead of a dress, the American woman wore a man’s shirt and trousers; and instead of long hair, she wore her hair cut short, like a man. The faces of the man and woman were white and drawn, as if they were sick.
The American woman who looked like a man and the tall man with her were led away by the Japanese soldiers. The fliers were taken to a clearing in the woods. Shots rang out. The soldiers returned alone. (Editor’s note: No evidence has ever surfaced that supports the fliers being shot so soon after their arrival on Saipan. Some evidence exists that Amelia was shot much later, but none suggests that Fred Noonan was ever shot.)
Mrs. Akiyama has affirmed, after identifying a photograph of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan taken on the world flight, that the couple was unquestionably the same man and woman she and her brother-in-law had seen on Saipan: the clothes were different, but the woman’s haircut was unmistakable.
Josephine Blanco’s story, which is basically the same one she told Dr. Sheft in Saipan, is most probably true. It is extremely unlikely this native girl could have invented her story. If she had, then for what purpose? If for profit or gain, she had, for more than ten years after the American invasion, the opportunity to capitalize on her sensational news.
As an eleven-year-old girl, Josephine of course had no idea of the significance of what she had seen other than it was indeed an American woman she had seen. Dr. Sheft has never doubted her story, and for many years he has hoped that a thorough re-examination of the facts would be made. They were.
Amelia Earhart could have ended her flight around the world at Saipan, If she were indeed headed for Howland Island, however, she somehow made an error of about 100° in reading her compass.
(Editor’s note: The following scenario, in which Briand has the Electra and its crew reaching Saipan directly from Lae, is typical of the wild speculation that characterized the early days following the public release of Josephine’s Earhart sighting, and is included here only because it, too, is part of Briand’s closing chapter.)
It means that all during the night of July 2, beginning after sundown at 5:55 p.m., Fred Noonan was not able to get a fix from the stars to determine his position. And if, after fourteen hours out from Lae, he looked down and saw a chain of islands, he would have determined that he was on course and over the Gilbert Islands; but if AE had turned north while he was napping, and he had still awakened in time to see islands, they would have been, not the Gilberts as he might have thought, but the Caroline Islands — exactly the same distance away but in the wrong direction.
By somehow departing from her course, and making the tremendous error of steering north and west instead of east — as she had done once before on the world flight, when she had turned north to St. Louis instead of south to Dakar, overriding Fred’s directions, after the flight across the South Atlantic — AE would have found herself after twenty hours of flying time somewhere along the chain of islands that marks the Marianas.
Her last report, at 8:45 a.m., gave her line of position at 157-337. The Navy’s search satisfied judgments that the line was not a radio line, for the areas northwest and southeast from Howland were thoroughly investigated. One hundred fifty-seven-337, therefore, was undoubtedly a sun line.
Near Howland, at position 01° 00′ North Latitude and 177° 20′ West Latitude, on July 3, 1937, the bearing of the sun was 66° from the north point at 7:00 a.m., Howland time. The sun line, therefore, would have been 156-336.
Near Saipan, at position 13° 00′ North Latitude and 153° 00′ East Longitude, at 5:00 a.m., Saipan time, the sun was 64° from the north point. A sun line there would have been 154-334.
If Noonan had thought he was close to Howland when he shot his last sun line, his geographical point of reference — used for computing and plotting his observation — would obviously have been close to Howland. If he had actually been close to Saipan, however, the relative position of the sun would still have been almost the same: 64° from the north point near Saipan, as opposed to 66° from the north point near Howland. But his observation, when computed and plotted on his chart, would have shown him to be the same number of miles from his geographical point of reference.
An experienced navigator with trust in his abilities such as Noonan would have tended to believe that either his observations or his computations were somehow wrong. He would not have thought, at least immediately, that he was some 2,600 miles off course. If AE had been pressing him for a position to radio to the Itasca, he might have, in agonies of doubt, merely given her the line of position, which he could be sure of, but not the geographical point of reference, because he could now no longer determine that point with certainty. This possibility would explain the irregularity of Amelia having transmitted the line of position without the necessary point of reference.
On the basis of these determinations, therefore, there is strong support for believing in Josephine Blanco’s story.
The Navy gave Amelia until about noon before she would go down. It was at noontime that Josephine saw the two-motored plane ditch in Tanapag Harbor.
The Navy’s final conclusion was that Amelia had ended her flight somewhere north and west. Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were seen by two eyewitnesses north and west of Howland on Saipan. At that time of the year the American woman and her tall male companion could have been none other than AE and Fred Noonan.
In 1937 on Saipan, according to Maximo and Josephine Akiyama, the Japanese military did not hesitate to kill anyone. Japanese civilian or Chamorro native, whom they suspected of supping on their illegal fortifications.
Japanese officialdom maintaining an enigmatic silence (the Japanese Embassy in Washington knows nothing of the Earhart case, nor does Dr. John Young of Georgetown University, who examined captured Japanese documents for the American Government) concerning the disappearance of the two fliers, it may be idle to speculate upon the final fate of Fred Noonan and Amelia Earhart. The evidence, however, justifies at least one tenable conclusion.
When Josephine Blanco saw the twin-engined silver plane, Amelia and Fred had been flying for twenty-six consecutive hours and for 4,000 futile miles. The sight of the island that was Saipan must have cheered the fliers with renewed hope for safety, and for life itself.
When they survived the crash landing in Tanapag Harbor only to be taken into custody as spies, their joy must have turned to inexplicable bitterness: they had been saved not for life, but for death before a Japanese firing squad.
For Amelia, who once had said to her husband, “I don’t want to go; but when I do, I’d like to go in my plane — quickly,” the last word of her wish must have struck her now with sudden and ironic force.
Yet, as she had so often before, Amelia Earhart must have met this challenge with stubborn self-control and resolute courage. For here at last was her unmistakable, but irrefutable, fate.
Thus ended Daughter of the Sky. Though it was riddled with erroneous conclusions and wild speculation, its most important feature, Josephine Blanco’s eyewitness sighting of Earhart and Noonan on Saipan in the summer of 1937, was quite real — and this reality launched the modern-day search for Amelia Earhart.
Few, and mainly those who read this blog regularly, know about the vital role that San Mateo Times reporter Linwood Day played in the earliest days of the Earhart investigation, newly launched by virtue of the blockbuster revelations in Daughter of the Sky. Day’s Earhart series reached its zenith on July 1, 1960, when the Times front page announced in 100-point headlines, all caps, “AMELIA EARHART MYSTERY IS SOLVED.”
Fred Goerner was already on Saipan in the midst of his first witness investigation, and in six years his book, The Search for Amelia Earhart, would sell more than 400,000 copies, only to be trashed by Time magazine as a work that “barely hangs together.” The rest is history.
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.