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.
Five years ago we marked the 75th anniversary of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, if it’s appropriate to use the word “anniversary” to commemorate such a ghastly atrocity as the barbaric murders of Earhart and Fred Noonan by the prewar Japanese military on Saipan.
The diamond anniversary of Amelia’s loss, as it were, came nearly simultaneously with the June 2012 publication of Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, thanks to Sunbury Press publisher Larry Knorr. Now we’ve arrived at the 80th, or “oak” anniversary of the fliers’ last official message, and though nothing in the big picture has changed, I suppose it’s appropriate to write something. A personal retrospective seems manageable, if nothing else.
The near-total media blackout of The Truth at Last continues, but anyone who seeks the truth can find it without any help from a mainstream media that in recent years has distinguished itself only by removing all doubts about its irredeemably corrupt nature, as well as its anti-American agenda.
Dominating the Earhart situation, as I see it, is the overwhelming aversion to the truth displayed by the American and international media, an antipathy that’s never been worse than in recent years. Wikipedia, the Net’s repository of conventional wisdom, refuses to include any mention of The Truth at Last or my name in its Amelia Earhart entry, and relegates the truth to a buried subsection, the old standby, “Japanese capture theory.” Fred Goerner is fleetingly mentioned; otherwise, Wikipedia omits the mountains of evidence presented in The Truth at Last. Wikipedia speaks for the entire establishment when it in sneers, “Many ideas emerged after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. Two possibilities concerning the flyers’ fate have prevailed among researchers and historians.” These, the punctuation-and-grammatically challenged Wikipedia declares, are the “Crash and sink theory,” and the “Gardner Island hypothesis.” (Italics mine) The insight is overpowering, is it not?
Fox News, our “fair and balanced” news source, is no better, and excludes all mention of The Truth at Last in its website’s comments section whenever they post their Earhart propaganda, usually in support of TIGHAR’s endless boondoggles to Nikumaroro, but in other cases as well. In fact, not one of the so-called “truth tellers” in our alternative media – not Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin or anyone else who claims moral and ethical superiority in the conservative talk world will go anywhere near the truth in the Earhart story. Amelia Earhart’s fate has turned them all into cowards and liars.
These are just a few of many blatant examples clearly demonstrating that the truth about Amelia Earhart is among the most hated of all sacred cows by the U.S. establishment-media complex. Is more evidence necessary? “What is this truth that’s so hated and avoided by our media?” new readers of this blog might ask. In the Conclusion of The Truth at Last, I write:
Whether it was an intelligence mission that went sideways or for still unknown technical reasons, the fliers landed at Mili Atoll, were picked up by a Japanese fishing boat, transferred to the Japanese survey ship Koshu, and taken to their Marshall Islands headquarters at Jaluit. From Jaluit, they were flown to Roi-Namur on Kwajalein, and later to Saipan, where imprisonment, possible torture, and certain misery were their daily companions until death released the doomed pair from their torments.
Multiple witnesses every step of the way attest to a reality that is transparently obvious to the rational observer, but one that our agenda-driven media despises, refuses to acknowledge and withholds from the public as a matter of policy. The legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932, and briefly as acting chief justice in early 1930, might have been seeing into the future and describing the Earhart case when he wrote, “It seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure.”
Nagging questions remain, smaller “mysteries,” if you will, chief among them are why and how the fliers reached and landed off Barre Island at Mili Atoll in the afternoon of July 2. Some are certain Earhart overflew Truk on a mission of “white intelligence,” as Fred Goerner described it more than once, while insisting that “didn’t make her a spy.” Sure, that might well have happened, but we still can’t prove it.
Shortly after The Truth at Last was published, I began contacting every talk radio host in the United States; almost none of them extended me the civility of a negative response – they simply ignored my queries. A few others initially expressed interest, but once they learned the unpleasant truth, they disappeared faster than the Electra on July 2, 1937. I lost track of the numbers, but certainly upward of a thousand of these media types wanted nothing to do with this story; you can find a list of the rare few who actually stepped up to help on my blog’s Media page.
I also developed a stand-up presentation when a women’s group in Knoxville asked me to speak, eventually turning it into a power-point program that’s been well received by the few who have invited me. Over the past four years, I’ve contacted virtually every American Legion and Veterans of Foreign War chapter, Kiwanis and Lions Clubs, men’s and women’s clubs of various types, aviation group, public and private high school, seniors assisted living facility — you name it, within 120 miles of Jacksonville, with anemic results. For these groups it’s just a lack of interest born of ignorance, but allegedly well-educated media people have no such excuse. Their resistance to the Marshalls-Saipan truth is palpable and hostile, and simple ignorance is not what motivates them. I expected serious resistance following publication of With Our Own Eyes: Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart in 2002, but I never imagined the depth and breadth of the abject rejection that’s become the dominant feature of the public aspect of this work.
Still, in a war that’s unwinnable before my time down here runs out, we’ve taken a few steps forward, small victories, but enough to keep me focused on this worthy cause. I met the brilliant news analyst David Martin (DCDave.com) about 2005 when I found his 2004 book-length exposé “Who Killed James Forrestal?” in which Martin proves that our first secretary of defense was murdered at Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 22, 1949, and did not commit suicide, as is commonly held as gospel. Since Martin and I share the unenviable mission of trying to slay inviolate sacred cows, I wanted to let him know about my Earhart work. Martin was sympathetic, and agreed to review The Truth at Last, introducing his Aug. 7, 2012 piece, “Hillary Clinton and the Amelia Earhart Cover-Up,” with this snappy limerick:
Few things are more unsettling,
From experience I know,
Than to feel a building shaken
By quaking ground below.
But I’ve felt one discomfiture
Of almost comparable size,
Discovering that our “free” press
Purveys official lies.
About a year after The Truth at Last hit the street, my piece, “The truth in the Earhart “mystery” is a sacred cow” appeared on Veterans News Now, went to No. 1 on the site within three days and stayed on the site’s top 25 for many months. I didn’t post this commentary on my blog, but it’s an excellent primer for anyone with interest in the Earhart story.
As if to confirm my contention about the verboten status of the Earhart truth, in early January 2013, no less an establishment stronghold than the National Museum of the Pacific War, which houses the Admiral Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas, refused to stock The Truth at Last in its bookstore, decreeing that the book’s “subject matter is not part of our mission of WWII in the Pacific Theater at this museum.” Retired Army Maj. Glenn MacDonald, editor-in-chief of the popular military-oriented site, MilitaryCorruption.com, chronicled the Nimitz Museum travesty with a story headlined “Admiral Nimitz Museum Betrays Namesake,” which was also ignored by the Nimitz Museum’s enlightened leadership.
If this weren’t enough, in early 2014, a friend, professional educator and Earhart researcher from Maryland visited the museum, hoping to ask its president and CEO, retired Marine Gen. Michael W. Hagee, why his bookstore refused to carry The Truth at Last. Not only did Hagee refuse to meet with this man, he sent a minion to tell him that Nimitz’s immortal words to Goerner, “Now that you’re going to Washington, Fred, I want to tell you Earhart and her navigator did go down in the Marshalls and were picked up by the Japanese,” which once adorned a conspicuous archway in the museum but were removed at some undetermined time years ago, are now suspect because Fred Goerner was “probably lying about what Nimitz told him.” You can read more on this outrage in my April 11, 2014 post, “Nimitz Museum continues disgraceful Earhart policy.”
All was not as bleak. Mrs. Kay Alley, the vice chair of the Kansas Chapter of the Ninety-Nines, invited me to address the South Central Section Fall 2014 Meeting of the Ninety-Nines in Wichita, Kan. It was the highlight of my year, and I wrote about it in my Oct. 4, 2014 post, “99s welcome “The Truth at Last” to Wichita.” Unfortunately, no other Ninety-Nines chapter has expressed any interest in learning the truth. Recall this is the group that Amelia herself co-founded in 1929 with Louise Thaden, but based on my experience with the South Central Ninety Nines in 2014, sadly, it appears that the blanket ignorance affecting our general population has infected today’s Ninety-Nines as well.
In early November 2014, Smithsonian magazine writer Jerry Adler sent me an email to request my cooperation for a story about the Earhart disappearance. According to Adler, the magazine’s interest in doing the article had stemmed from the latest Ric Gillespie-Nikumaroro announcement, but he said his piece would “cover the gamut of explanations, including your own.”
Knowing the Smithsonian’s history of propaganda and deceit in all things Earhart, Adler’s request immediately raised my suspicions, but I decided it would be better to cooperate with him, hoping he might be fair with me, as he said he would. My skepticism was well founded, and Adler’s hit piece, “Will the Search for Amelia Earhart Ever End?,” the cover story of the Smithsonian’s January 2015 issue, was anything but fair and honest. Adler deprecated what he thought he could get away with, left out any mention of the massive evidence that supports the truth, strongly suggested that I am a “wild eyed obsessive” and conspiracy theorist, yet in his conclusion was still forced to admit that I was “onto something” after all.
I couldn’t let Adler and the Smithsonian get away with this underhanded attack without at least one good counterpunch, and in my 5,000-word rebuttal, I dissected his trash line by line. I strongly urge anyone who hasn’t read my Jan. 18, 2015 post, Smithsonian mag throws “Truth at Last” a bone: Says, “it’s possible . . . Campbell is on to something“ to do so.
In early May 2016, David Martin returned to review the second edition of The Truth at Last, adding his own unique perspective to the piece. To read Martin’s review, “Amelia Earhart Truth Versus the Establishment,” please click here.
Finally, in mid-May 2017, thanks to Mr. Ben Willingham, a retired Navy pilot, captain and chairman of the Bald Eagle Chapter (www.baldeaglesquadron.org) of the Association of Naval Aviation, I was honored to address this distinguished group at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville Officers Club. Going into this engagement, I anticipated some pushback from a group that included retired admirals, captains and even the executive officer of NAS Jacksonville. I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the kindness these former and current Navy warriors accorded me, and my power-point presentation was well received. It was videotaped and produced into an MP4, and I might make it available here at some point.
Thirty-six years earlier, as a lowly enlisted journalist working on the base newspaper at Cecil Field, Fla., just down the road, I never dreamed that someday I’d return to speak to such a distinguished gathering of Navy aviators. Contrary to my expectation that some of these Navy types might take offense when I revealed to them the depth of the Navy’s role in the Earhart cover-up, no one protested, and more than a few approached me afterward to shake my hand and express their appreciation – a rare good day in the Earhart wars, one that I’ll always remember.
The Big Lie: The Great Aviation Mystery
Since publication of The Truth at Last, a few more might have accepted the truth that the Earhart disappearance is not the “Great Aviation Mystery” that’s been forced down our throats for eight decades. Make no mistake, this enormous falsehood has taken its place among the pantheon of great American lies that would be the envy of Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels, and became an immovable piece of our cultural furniture very long ago. I devoted a subsection to summarizing this theme, “The Big Lie: The Great Aviation Mystery,” in the conclusion of the second edition of The Truth at Last (pp. 322-324), and it cannot be overemphasized.
An American public that has been thoroughly deceived for 80 years about Amelia Earhart is completely ignorant of the fact that there is no “mystery” and no real “theories” in the Earhart case. We have only the truth, which is surrounded and buried by glorified lies masquerading as theories. Neither crashed-and-sank nor Nikumaroro has any semblance of plausible evidence to connect the fliers or the Electra to the Pacific floor or the former Gardner Island, and both ideas dissipate into smoke upon the slightest scrutiny. Neither of these lies has a single eyewitness to lend it even the slightest credibility.
Some have suggested that our new president might be the one who will finally declassify and disclose the top-secret Earhart files. Joel Freedman, of Canandaigua, N.Y., a longtime supporter of the truth and prolific local op-ed writer, was among them. His letter, “Next president should disclose Amelia Earhart’s fate,” appeared in the Aug. 23, 2016 online edition of the Daily Messenger, and appeared a month later in the Sept. 21, 2016 online edition of the Atchison (Kansas) Globe, the newspaper of Amelia’s birthplace.
I’ve always kept politics out of this blog, except as it relates to Earhart. But it’s no secret that the America’s Fourth Estate is also its Fifth Column, and for decades our media have been the most effective appendage of America’s worst internal enemy, the Democratic Party, and recently we’ve seen far too many establishment Republicans silently standing by and thus silently endorsing the radical, statist, poisonous ideology that is now threatening to tear apart the very fabric of our society, once the envy of the civilized world. Considering this current zeitgeist, the chances for government disclosure are virtually nonexistent.
Under different circumstances, Donald Trump, more than any president in recent memory, appears to be the ideal outsider to break down the 80-year Earhart stonewall. But Trump has too many enemies on both sides of the aisle, and infinitely more pressing issues on his plate to bring off a sea change in the Earhart matter. And who among Trump’s inner circle would possibly bring this historical travesty to the president’s attention, as something worthy of his consideration? His liberal daughter, Ivanka? Or perhaps her young husband, Jared Kushner? Pigs will fly.
The Ugly Bottom Line
In the conclusion of Chapter XIV, “The Care and Nurture of a Sacred Cow,” in The Truth at Last, I address the biggest Earhart question of all as directly as possible:
FDR knew his sanitized legacy as the New Deal savior of the American middle class, the commander in chief who saved the world from the Nazi and Japanese menaces, could never withstand public knowledge of his abandonment of America’s First Lady of Flight, not to mention Fred Noonan, an accomplished navigator and well-known figure in his own right. FDR’s cowardly failure to initially confront Earhart’s captors, and his subsequent decision to keep the truth from the world, cemented his own culpability in their tragic, unnecessary ends. Roosevelt had no stomach for the national outcry and endless questions that any revelations after the fact would have spurred, and his alleged secret executive order that permanently embargoed the truth was his best solution to a situation that should have consigned him to a prominent position in history’s all-time rubbish heap of betrayal. The world has been left with the phony Earhart “mystery” ever since.
If protecting Franklin D. Roosevelt from the infamy he justly deserves might no longer be enough to ensure that the Earhart secrets stay secure under lock and key, we also have our friends in the Pacific, the Japanese, to consider, and this factor has, obviously, sealed the deal, very possibly forever.
In September 1951, when the dust had cleared from the phony war trials, the United States and Japan signed a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with 48 other nations that became known as the San Francisco System, and this arrangement has defined relations between the two nations ever since. Would the San Francisco System have proceeded as smoothly if President Harry S. Truman had stepped up and broken ranks with his deceased former boss and revealed Japan’s guilt in the deaths of Earhart and Noonan, as well as Roosevelt’s gag order to permanently kill public knowledge of it?
“Japan and the United States are strong allies sharing basic values and strategic interests, with the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements at the core,” Steven K. Vogel wrote in the introduction to the 2002 Brookings Institution-published U.S.-Japan Relations in a Changing World. “Under such a strong alliance, both countries are closely working together and sharing roles and responsibilities not only on bilateral issues, but on regional issues in the Asia-Pacific and global issues as well.”
By itself, the United States’ paternal attachment to its former hated enemy might have been enough to keep the secrets of the Earhart disappearance buried in the deepest recesses of our national security apparatus. But since the FDR factor preceded our permanent Japan protectorate policy, we’ll never know for sure.
Ask yourself this: Why has no establishment journalist of any repute – or any kind at all, for that matter – ever attempted to do a serious story or investigation into the Earhart case since Fred Goerner’s 1966 bestseller The Search for Amelia Earhart, was panned by Time magazine as a “Sinister Conspiracy?” If I’ve shown that anything is true since The Truth at Last was published in 2012, it is that Goerner was the last and only public figure to honestly search for Amelia Earhart. But when he found her on Saipan in the many eyewitnesses and witnesses whose accounts he presented, he was severely marginalized following the Time attack of his book. Goerner passed away from cancer in 1994 at age 69, all but forgotten, never realizing the great potential of “solving the Earhart mystery” that his book so richly promised, and that he so badly wanted to fulfill.
But it wasn’t Goerner or his book that failed to deliver; the entire American government-media establishment declared war on him, his book and everyone else with the temerity to follow up on the KCBS newsman’s groundbreaking Saipan investigations. The word came down that the Marshalls-Saipan truth was off-limits, and so nobody went anywhere near the sacred cow, and this quarantine continues to this day. An Amazon.com search for Amelia Earhart will bring more than 1,350 results, but more than 99 percent of these are biographies, novels, fantasies and all manner of children’s books, by far the top sellers in the Earhart market. Of all these books, no more than about 10 are legitimate investigations into the truth, and but Goerner’s were written by obscure individuals who ignored the establishment boycott of the truth for their own intensely personal reasons.
Former Air Force C-47 pilot Vincent V. Loomis and his wife, Georgette, traveled to the Marshalls in 1978 hoping to find the wreck of a plane Loomis saw on an uninhabited island near Ujae Atoll in 1952. Loomis didn’t find the unidentified aircraft he hoped was the Earhart Electra, but in four trips to the Marshalls he gathered considerable witness testimony indicating the fliers’ presence there. His book, Amelia Earhart: The Final Story was hailed by some at a time when big media’s rejection of information supporting Earhart’s survival and death on Saipan had yet to reach its virtual blackout of the past few decades. The Final Story’s most glowing review came from Jeffrey Hart, writing in William F. Buckley’s National Review. Gushing that Loomis “interviewed the surviving Japanese who were involved and he photographed the hitherto unknown Japanese military and diplomatic documents,” Hart then announced, “The mystery is a mystery no longer.” Obviously, Hart’s declaration failed to elicit the faintest response from an indifferent establishment.
Thomas E. Devine was not a writer; he was a sergeant in the Army’s 244th Postal Unit on Saipan who saw the Earhart Electra three times, once flying overhead, actually climbed onto a wing to inspect it and finally saw it in flames, burned beyond recognition by Marines on Saipan. Devine’s 1987 book, Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident, is among the most important disappearance books ever penned. In Eyewitness, many years in the making, Devine told of his amazing Saipan experiences, and in its conclusion he reached out to his fellow Saipan veterans, urging them to report their own eyewitness stories that reflected the presence and death of Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan in the years before the 1944 U.S. invasion. Twenty-six former GIs heard and responded to Devine’s plea, and their stunning accounts were presented for the first time in With Our Own Eyes: Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart, our little-known 2002 book.
“I saw the [Earhart] plane,” Devine told me in February 1991 during my first visit to his West Haven, Conn., home. “I know all about the plane. The plane was there. No matter what anyone would ever say, that plane was Earhart’s plane—positively, absolutely, 100 percent. I can drop dead right now if it wasn’t so. Nobody can change my mind about it, because it was her plane.” It’s there that the remains of Electra NR 16020 can still be found, Devine said, bulldozed into a landfill with the assorted rubble and refuse of war, and buried under the tarmac of what eventually became Saipan International Airport.
A few others wrote valuable books that are virtually unknown today, such as South African Oliver Knaggs, whose Amelia Earhart: Her last flight (1983), strongly supports Loomis’ Marshalls findings; Joe Davidson’s Amelia Earhart Returns from Saipan (1969), presents Don Kothera and his Cleveland Group’s interviews with Anna Diaz Magofna and other Saipan eyewitnesses for the first time; and Dave Horner’s The Earhart Enigma (2013) is the most recent addition to the thin collection of works that present the unpleasant truth, none coming from an establishment journalist.
Since Goerner’s Search brought down the ire of a government-media complex caught with its figurative pants down, only Amelia Earhart Lives (McGraw-Hill, 1970), written by Joe Klaas but actually Klaas’ creative transcription of famed-but-seriously-flawed researcher Joe Gervais’ delusional claim that New Jersey woman Irene Bolam was actually Amelia Earhart returned from Japan, made any real noise. The reason for all the commotion was transparently obvious. Although the book offered solid new research that further established Earhart’s presence on Saipan in 1937, its outrageous assertion about Irene Bolam overshadowed all else, elicited a defamation lawsuit from Bolam, and forced McGraw-Hill to pull the book from circulation.
The public image of legitimate Earhart research has yet to fully recover from the damage Amelia Earhart Lives inflicted on all who have painstakingly pursued the truth – “crackpots, conspiracy theorists and nut jobs” — are a few of the more polite labels you will see and hear applied to the few of us who continue this work. Although I complain ceaselessly, I can’t even imagine what I’d be doing now if this story hadn’t found me in 1988.
The foregoing should give you a good idea about where the Earhart disappearance currently stands in our upside-down society. Although I’m sure Amelia is in Heaven enjoying this spectacle playing out beneath the celestial choirs — her patience may still be wearing thin with the fools who continue to dishonestly seek fortune and fame at her expense. Amelia and Fred were probably the first American casualties of World War II, and they deserve better than to be kicked around in national and international gutters as political footballs, or used as decoys for boondoggles and scams to line pockets already filthy will ill-gained lucre.
I’ve been taking all this quite personally since meeting Thomas E. Devine in 1988. I saw firsthand the emergent TIGHAR plague’s insidious effects on this long-suffering soul, how it gradually wore him down as TIGHAR increasingly dominated nearly all media coverage of the Earhart case. Ironically, the first Earhart story I ever wrote was for publication in Navy and Marine Corps newspapers at sea and around the world. You can’t keep the Navy out of the Earhart story, no matter how hard you try.
Smithsonian mag throws “Truth at Last” a bone: Says, “it’s possible . . . Campbell is on to something”
In early November 2014, a contributing writer to Smithsonian magazine named Jerry Adler contacted me via email, asking if I’d talk to him for a story about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart he was working on. Adler said the magazine’s editors’ interest in doing the story had stemmed from “Ric Gillespie’s announcement last week of evidence in support of his Nikumaroro theory” [the worst excuse for writing a major piece on the Earhart matter I’ve ever heard], but his piece would “cover the gamut of explanations, including your own.”
Though pleased that someone at Smithsonian, though clearly not this writer, had read Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last and found it worthwhile, I was also quite skeptical. I told Adler, “I couldn’t have been more surprised than to hear from a writer for Smithsonian,” whose sister publications, American Heritage and Invention and Technology Magazine have recently featured the erroneous ideas of Tom Crouch, the Air and Space Museum’s senior curator, and TIGHAR’s Ric Gillespie, while the truth has taken severe beatings on the rare occasions it’s not ignored entirely.
Few if any will be writing reviews of Adler’s story, “Will the Search for Amelia Earhart Ever End?,” but even if it drew plenty of media attention, I’d still feel compelled to go on the record about it. After all, where is it written that Jerry Adler and the Smithsonian editors are the ultimate authorities on what you should think about the Earhart disappearance?
Has Adler or the magazine’s staff made the impossible battle to establish the truth among the top priorities of their lives, studied this matter for the better part of 30 years and been rejected by thousands as a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” by the ignorant and clueless? Do they really care about the U.S. government’s position and the media’s failure to do its job in exposing the truth? Not a chance.
According to its own boilerplate content statement, Smithsonian “looks at the topics and subject matters researched, studied and exhibited by the Smithsonian Institution – science, history, art, popular culture and innovation – and chronicles them for its diverse readership.” This trendy descriptor says nothing about the role that truth and the facts should play as it strives to serve its “diverse readership,” code words that reflect the myriad political, cultural and even religious readerships that publications such as Smithsonian, American Heritage and others of their ilk seek to please.
Unlike Smithsonian, where truth is dispensed only in small dollops for the edification of the most discerning readers — on the subject of Amelia Earhart, at least – readers familiar with this blog know that my observations and conclusions are always tied to known facts, and when speculation is offered, it’s labeled as such. This writer, as do we all now or later, answers to a higher authority than the Smithsonian board of directors, and I try to proceed accordingly.
“The Smithsonian’s Straight Skinny” (Part II)
For those who may not be familiar with recent articles published by highbrow magazines, in 2007, Tom Crouch, Ph.D., the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum senior curator, wrote a piece titled “Searching for Amelia Earhart” for Invention and Technology Magazine. You can read it in its entirely, above, but here’s the statement from Crouch that tells us how he feels about the Marshalls and Saipan scenarios:
… what are we to make of all the eyewitness testimony placing Earhart and Noonan in Japanese hands? Mustn’t there be at least a small flame of truth flickering beneath all that smoke? Sorry. You don’t have to follow many criminal cases to realize just how fallible witness memories can be. How much less trustworthy are the recollections of events that occurred more than two decades before, gathered from witnesses who speak a different language by interviewers who know what they want to hear?
In a quarter-century of looking, no researcher has produced a shred of hard evidence to suggest that Earhart and Noonan were either spies or victims of the Japanese.
I had serious problems with Crouch’s illogical analysis, and dissected his weak argument line-by-line in Truth at Last, in a section titled “The Smithsonian’s Straight Skinny” (see pages 376-382). “Crouch’s article, instead of offering readers a possible glimpse of the truth,” I wrote, “actually served as a platform for the latest government-approved talking points in the Earhart matter, masquerading as informed historical narrative from an unimpeachable authority. . . . Since no ‘archival evidence’ of Earhart’s captivity and death has yet to be produced, none must exist, Crouch asserted, which may be true; files can be destroyed or hidden beyond recovery.
“But even the moderately informed could see through Crouch’s flimsy argumentation against Saipan,” I continued, “and the patronizing arrogance that flavored his comments clearly signaled his loyalty to the falsehoods that are orthodoxy in the establishment he serves.”
Five years later, in the summer of 2012, Crouch was back, this time in American Heritage magazine, with “Amelia Found?” On this occasion, the 75th anniversary of Amelia’s loss, the senior curator didn’t bother to even briefly trace the history of the “Japanese capture theory,” as he’d done in “Searching for Amelia Earhart,” but he simply trashed it as quickly as possible:
What are we to make of all the conspiracy theories? Is there a small flame of truth flickering somewhere beneath all that smoke? Most likely not. In three-quarters of a century of looking, no researcher has produced a shred of hard evidence to suggest that Earhart and Noonan were either spies or prisoners of the Japanese.
Crouch’s contempt for the truth was evident in every word he wrote in this travesty, and again I had to respond. I wrote Crouch and the American Heritage editors a letter I knew would never see print, except on my own blog, where “American Heritage, Crouch do it again” appeared on Oct. 17, 2012.
“American Heritage needs to be reminded that their readership is not totally populated by morons and lemmings,” I wrote in conclusion, “so I hope this brief letter will at least accomplish that modest goal. I also know that American Heritage does not possess the integrity or intellectual honesty to publish this letter, but I’ll make sure I inform as many as I can about the continuing Earhart travesty and your role in perpetuating it.”
Does anyone out there seriously believe that Crouch would retain his job as senior curator and chief Air and Space Museum spokesmouth if he were to change his views on the Earhart disappearance and insist that the government release its top-secret files and come clean after nearly eight decades of denial and obfuscation? Please.
Can you blame me for thinking that the Smithsonian, with government apologist Crouch at the helm of the Air and Space Museum, has been among the most truth-averse organizations in the nation when it comes to the Earhart story? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think Crouch is ignorant or uninformed. On the contrary, he has a doctorate in history from Ohio State on his distinguished Air and Space Museum resume, and is the “author or editor of a number of books and many articles for both popular magazines and scholarly journals.” But when it comes to Amelia Earhart, what are we to conclude? Is it that Crouch just can’t seem to grasp the research that so clearly reveals the truth, or is there something a bit more sinister afoot?
So I asked myself, why would this magazine bother to ask me about my views? Did they think that including a few small snippets about the hated “Japanese capture theory” advanced only by a few addled “conspiracy theorists” would convince readers of their tolerance and dedication to “diversity”? Perhaps, but I figured it would be better to play the game with Adler than to insult him and guarantee no mention at all, so I fully cooperated with him.
Adler told me he had “no preconceptions” going into this story, a typical disclaimer offered by all writers at this level, and one that usually means quite the opposite is true. If Adler – or the editors who direct his work — really had no opinions about the Earhart disappearance before he began researching this story, why did it so strongly resemble every other treatment of this subject we’ve seen for nearly three decades?
These puff-pieces almost always emphasize the latest drippings from The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), an impressive title for an organization that is consistently unimpressive, has yet recover a single aircraft, and whose ethically challenged director has yet to establish a single probative link between Earhart or Fred Noonan and the scads of trash he brings back from his bi-annual boondoggles to Nikumaroro.
But before I proceed with more on the odious Gillespie, his Nikumaroro cash cow and the Smithsonian’s gentle treatment of perhaps the most effective enemies the truth in the Earhart disappearance has ever faced — with the exception of the U.S. government – readers should be enlightened about one important principle.
The Big Lie: The “Great Aviation Mystery”
This PRINCIPLE, which has become one of my constant memes, is that the very idea that the disappearance of Amelia Earhart is a “great aviation mystery” is among the biggest lies in American history. So effective has the U.S. government been in inculcating and maintaining this idea into the official historical narrative that it has become a normal piece of our cultural furniture, accepted without question by all but the few who care to closely examine this longtime canard, this straw man our establishment created so long ago to protect its own interests.
Thus, when the Earhart disappearance is analyzed or examined by people we would normally consider intelligent, like Tom Crouch, all the established, traditional rules of investigation, including objective evaluation of evidence, logic and the scientific approach become virtually nonexistent and non-applicable.
Any discerning individual who closely looks at the prevailing Earhart “theories” will discover that not a shred of alleged evidence for either crash-and-sank or Nikumaroro exists that doesn’t completely break down under mere moderate scrutiny, leaving absolutely nothing but smoke and babble. Simple logic will lead any objective investigator to the truth; the problem is that few modern-day “investigators” are either objective or logical.
Both these falsehoods are based upon assumptions made upon more assumptions, yet in polite circles they are considered far superior to the truth, supported by volumes of eyewitness accounts from citizens of the Marshalls and Saipan, four U.S. flag officers and over two-dozen former veterans of the Battle of Saipan, among others. Clearly, the desire to follow all these signposts that lead to the truth does not exist in the establishment media, nor virtually anywhere else, for that matter. In the Earhart case, the Big Lie has completely replaced the truth.
Knowledgeable observers recognize this, and know that TIGHAR’s Earhart operation, from its inception, has been little more than a well-oiled confidence game with two major goals – to separate the unwary from their money and provide Gillespie with a fat yearly salary. Fred Goerner recognized this early on, wasting his time in an August 1992 letter advising Gillespie not to paint himself into a corner by making claims he couldn’t substantiate. A few of Goerner’s uncanny predictions about Gillespie’s plots are presented on page 420 of Truth at Last.
Truth at Last presents an overwhelming, undeniable case for the Marshalls and Saipan presence of our fliers. Simple logic, something sorely missing in most Earhart discussions, tells us that if actually went down in the Pacific or landed and died on Nikumaroro, such a book, like those that preceded it, with its many hundreds of separate threads of evidence and testimony, would simply have been impossible.
Among the few true Earhart researchers active today, none has ever been accused of such craven, mercenary motivations as Gillespie. To my knowledge, the two researchers currently doing the most important work are Dick Spink, who says he’s $50,000 in the hole after four trips to the Marshall Islands, and Les Kinney, who’s never quoted a figure, but is also well in the red after numerous trips around the country in search of many pieces of major new evidence he’ll someday reveal in the book he’s writing.
These good men tread honorably on the narrow trail blazed by Paul Briand Jr., Fred Goerner, Vincent V. Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Don Kothera, Thomas E. Devine and Bill Prymak, their overriding motivation only to lay this false “mystery” that is the Earhart travesty to rest. Sadly, the real and continuing tragedy of the Earhart saga is that nothing short of the discovery of the Earhart Electra or Amelia herself returning from the grave would put an end to the status quo that 77 years of propaganda has created.
The last time Smithsonian engaged the Earhart story was about three years ago, when it published a shameless promotion of then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s public support for Gillespie’s 10th trip to Nikumaroro, in a March 20, 2012 piece by one K. Annabelle Smith titled, “The Search for Amelia Earhart Resurfaces, 75 Years Later.” Even for Smithsonian, this story reached new lows, which might explain why its editors finally deigned to include a brief mention of the hated Marshalls and Saipan scenarios for its January 2015 issue.
Here’s a sample of the insipid pabulum Smithsonian offered its readers in 2012:
And while new interest in Amelia Earhart’s disappearance has resurfaced as of late, Dorothy Cochrane, a curator at the National Air and Space Museum says “Lady Lindy’s” legacy has always held a place in the Smithsonian Institution. “Everybody has a theory, some more serious than others, but it’s still the greatest mystery of the 20th century,” she says, “and looks like it’s heading into the 21st century.”
Note the clueless Dorothy Cochrane’s insufferable insistence that the Earhart disappearance remains not only the greatest “aviation mystery,” but the “greatest mystery of the 20th century,” period. It rarely gets worse than this.
The Smithsonian’s Cover Story
Adler’s Earhart piece is the cover story for Smithsonian’s January 2015 issue. In the cover photo of Amelia, she is particularly striking as she glances at us across 80 years, goggles raised over her brow, impeccably geared up for takeoff in elegant white aviator’s togs. Set against a black background, the photo seems almost perfect, unlike the story itself.
“New Clues, New Controversy,” punctuate Amelia’s photo in bright red headlines, by when even moderately knowledgeable students of the Earhart case open the magazine and start reading “Will the Search for Amelia Earhart Ever End?” they will immediately realize they’ve been taken for another ride on the Earhart disinformation express.
To begin, the lead in Adler’s story is, quite frankly, incredible, as he travels to Gillespie’s “Pennsylvania farmhouse” to fawn over a piece of scrap aluminum that’s long been exposed as worthless junk, breathlessly telling us, “If he’s right, this is one of the great historical artifacts of the 20th century, a piece of the airplane in which Amelia Earhart made her famous last flight over the Pacific Ocean in July 1937.” This is news?
Adler’s story presents no “new clues” whatever. These “new clues, which Adler was told were this story’s very raison d’être, are nothing more than recently debunked, false interpretations of the provenance of a piece of aluminum scrap that’s been one of the centerpieces of the TIGHAR scam since its earliest days. I fail to see why Adler or one of the many researchers on staff at Smithsonian couldn’t have easily found two current newspaper stories that present the real “new evidence,” which emphatically exposes Gillespie’s aluminum claims as pure rubbish, or just asked somebody who doesn’t subscribe to TIGHAR’s latest talking points. But after 25 years of failed trips to Nikumaroro, Gillespie not only gets a pass, he still gets top billing from a magazine believed to represent enlightened thought by many.
Amelia Earhart Society (AES) researcher and pilot Gary LaPook talked to reporters Glenn Garvin of the Miami Herald and Bruce Burns of the Kansas City Star about the aluminum sheet, which Smithsonian editors displayed on a full page, as if readers would somehow be more impressed by the importance of the sheet of scrap aluminum if it was blown up into such a huge photo – talk about overkill. Garvin’s Oct. 30 story, “Investigators search for Amelia Earhart’s ghost in old Miami Herald,” was the second he’d done on Gillespie’s new claims, and he saved the most important fact – the “money quote,” so to speak, for the end of the story:
The most important evidence, however, is the linkage of Gillespie’s scrap to Earhart’s plane through study of the photo. And it’s on that point that LaPook and other his other critics insist most adamantly he’s wrong. They says [sic] telltale evidence on Gillespie’s scrap of wreckage prove it wasn’t manufactured until several years after Earhart crashed. The scrap bears a visible stamp of an A and a letter D — probably part of the label 24ST Alclad, the type of aluminum its [sic] made from.
But, LaPook says, Alcoa Inc., the company that manufactured the aluminum, didn’t start stamping it with the 24ST Alclad designation until 1941. Before that, it used the abbreviation ALC. “There are hundreds of photos of aluminum pieces stamped ALC,” LaPook said. “It’s just beyond doubt.”
Brian Burns’ story, “Has the key to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance in the Pacific been found in Kansas?” was a more unbiased treatment of Gillespie’s phony claims than the Miami Herald ran. Besides presenting LaPook’s information in a way that laymen could easily understand, Burns interviewed Louise Foudray, curator of the Earhart Birthplace Museum in Atchison, Kan., who was very kind to Gillespie. But Burns also asked for my opinion, and unlike the politically correct Foudray, I was in no mood for vaporous platitudes. I also wrote my own story, “LaPook destroys Gillespie’s latest false Earhart claim,” and posted it on my Truth at Last blog on Nov. 2, just a day before Adler contacted me.
“He tells me he’s ‘98 percent’ sure the piece came from Earhart’s plane,” Adler writes of Gillespie’s absurd estimation of the chances his Nikumaroro flotsam is connected to Amelia or the Electra and will bring him unanimous worldwide acclaim as the man who solved the Holy Grail of Aviation mysteries. Adler squanders nearly a third of his 3,500 word essay on Gillespie’s drivel, but at least he comes away quite dubious, as he should be. He closes his section on Gillespie by quoting one of the few intelligent sentences Tom Crouch has ever uttered in the Earhart discussion: “I think if Ric proved anything, it’s that [Earhart and Noonan] never were close to that island.”
Mercifully, Adler foregoes another episode of Tom Crouch’s crashed-and-sank advocacy, otherwise known in enlightened circles as “defending the indefensible,” but he does direct readers to Elgen and Marie Long’s discredited polemic, Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved. This book “remains the simplest explanation,” Adler writes, “but for that very reason, has attracted derision from those who prefer their history complicated.” He’s wrong, of course. Crashed-and-sank wasn’t dismissed by coherent researchers long ago for the very reason of its simplicity, but because it’s simply flat wrong, and there’s never been a sliver of evidence to support it.
In fact, I’m convinced that it was because of the absurd nature of the crashed-and-sank theory that the establishment selected TIGHAR’s not-quite-so-ridiculous Nikumaroro “hypothesis” as its preferred avenue of disinformation in 1989, with Elgin and Marie Long’s defunct Navy and Coast Guard verdict relegated to backup status as a secondary diversion for the confused.
For some unknown reason far beyond my ken, someone at the magazine also decided to include the ideas of one Bill Snavely, who, up until his mention in this story has been a total unknown in Earhart circles. Do a google search, combining his name with “Earhart,” and you will find absolutely nothing.
I’d never heard of Bill Snavely and his Bouganville claims, nor has any other Earhart researcher I’ve asked, but the fact that Travel Channel featured his crackpot ideas, along with Australian David Billings and his New Britain theory, and Gillespie, of course, in a two-hour documentary Jan. 8 was simply further confirmation that the establishment has no room for the truth, but will happily put any kind of nonsense out there to distract and misinform the public.
“This was a complete waste of a serious Earhart enthusiast’s time,” an AES member wrote in its online forum. “It compares to Geraldo Riviera’s search for Capone’s artifacts in Chicago many years ago. Can you imagine searching for downed aircraft in the jungles of New Britain with flash lights at night? Gillespie’s comment of 100 percent got me all shocked up.”
A Crack in the Door
From the beginning of our correspondence, I felt that Adler planned to include some discussion of Truth at Last only because he was told to do so. Sure, the former Newsweek reporter names Truth at Last in his piece, but he has little good say about it, other than admit I present “a mountain of testimony from American servicemen and Pacific Islanders to show that an American man and woman landed in the Marshalls in 1937 and were taken to Saipan, although apparently they never introduced themselves by name (italics mine).”
Adler also does well when he introduces the history of Saipan research by spending more than a paragraph on Thomas E. Devine’s eyewitness account presented in his 1987 classic, Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident, and he calls Devine’s story “riveting.” A pretty good start, I thought, but one that failed to deliver on its promise.
As our email conversations proceeded (we never actually spoke on the phone), Adler said he had “skimmed” Truth at Last “for my own purposes” in researching his story, and wrote that he found its argumentation “persuasive.” He also asked a few intelligent questions that indicated he’d spent at least a few minutes thinking about what he’d read. But in his story, the best he could manage was to write, “it’s possible to come away thinking Campbell is on to something.” Thus do Adler and Smithsonian magazine engage in the literary equivalent of throwing a bare bone to the poor, starving dog in the back yard that was abandoned by its owners when they moved. I exaggerate only slightly.
Adler did grant my request to include my statement, ”FDR could never have survived public knowledge that he failed to help America’s No. 1 aviatrix of the Golden Age of Aviation,” a pleasant surprise. Editors also displayed the four Amelia Earhart 50th Anniversary Commemorative stamps issued in 1987 by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, thereby proving at least one solid fact about the Earhart case – that Amelia’s landing at Mili and pickup by the Japanese is accepted as fact by the people of that free country. The few Westerners who will ever visit these remote islands can be sure they won’t be subjected to any local media shilling for the latest phony discoveries in the “Earhart Mystery.” The Marshallese people don’t wonder about what happened to Amelia; they already know.
Otherwise, Adler finds ways — all questionable or flatly illegitimate — to deprecate nearly everything about Truth at Last he thinks he can get away with. He also strongly suggests, by his tone, that he considers its author to be among “a group that includes serious historians as well as wild-eyed obsessives, who pile up scraps of evidence into conspiracies reaching right up to the White House” – and it’s clear it’s not among “serious historians” where he thinks anyone should be looking for me.
A close examination of the paragraph that ends with Adler’s grudging admission that I might be “on to something” could easily lead readers to wonder why he even bothers, as he cherry picks what he sees as the easiest targets and attempts to discredit them. First of all, I fail to see how he can write that Truth at Last “is filled with mysterious disappearances, cryptic warnings from sinister strangers and suspicious deaths,” without providing a single example or even explaining the significance of this baseless observation.
He casts a negative pall on Adm. Chester Nimitz’s statement to Fred Goerner – never denied or disputed by Nimitz after Goerner presented it in his 1966 bestseller, The Search for Amelia Earhart – because it was in a phone conversation and Goerner was the “only source,” but he overlooks the statement of Gen. Graves Erskine, former V Amphibious Corps second in command during the Saipan invasion, to CBC West Coast President Jules Dundes and KCBS reporter Dave McElhatton: “It was established that Earhart was on Saipan.”
Adler asserts that much of the evidence in the book is “second- or third-hand,” as if such testimony is unworthy of our consideration. But he conveniently ignores the many direct eyewitness accounts from unimpeachable native witnesses such as Josephine Blanco Akiyama, Anna Diaz Mogofna, Bilimon Amaron, Dr. Manual Aldan, Louis Igitol and John Tobeke, among others, as well as Americans including Erskine, Jim Golden, Robert E. Wallack, Erskine Nabers, Jerrell H. Chatham, Arhur Nash, Henry Duda and many others.
He also fails to mention that the 1960 Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) Report has been thoroughly ignored by the entire media since its declassification in 1967; instead he focuses on a single hearsay statement that was included in this report. Citing Devine’s extensive argumentation from Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident, I rebutted this revealing yet still unknown document’s findings at length in Truth at Last, which Adler also decided wasn’t worth mentioning.
Nathanial Hawthorne’s infamous scarlet “A” long ago ceased to be a symbol of shame in American, as adultery became a mainstream pastime; now it’s the “C” word, for the despised “conspiracy theorist” that so cruelly taints those smeared by it, fairly or unfairly. It’s a tool of Adler’s trade, but not once throughout our 11-day email discussion did I use this word to describe anything about the Earhart story – most of which he was hearing, or more accurately, reading for the first time.
But in his story, he uses the “C” word not once, but twice in references to me, an undeserved cheap shot by which he signals his readers how they should regard my work. This postmodern aversion to the word is itself absurd, as if no conspiracies have ever existed, and anyone who believes differently is to be assiduously avoided.
Adler cites not a single instance in Truth at Last where I engage in any speculation resembling that of the “wild-eyed obsessives” he describes in the opening of his story. When I quote Fred Goerner’s ideas about why President Franklin D. Roosevelt likely prevented release of the truth about the Japanese capture of Earhart and Noonan in a subsection titled “Roots of the Cover-Up” (pages 353-358), or quote from numerous sources about their knowledge of secret files and a concerted government effort to conceal the truth, does this make me a conspiracy theorist?
Apparently so, but virtually everything I present is labeled appropriately, and the reader understands that this information isn’t about what I think, but about what many of this story’s key characters knew, found and believed through the years that strongly suggested and even sometimes clearly illustrated active government participation in suppressing the truth about what happened to Amelia Earhart.
This use of the “C” word is just another way Adler tried to undermine my work, but it also tells discerning readers that the truth has once again received short shrift, this time from the trusted Smithsonian magazine. If he was really trying to “fairly represent” my work, as he stated during our correspondence, he failed miserably.
“In Earhart’s fate,” Adler writes in conclusion, “we see a reflection of our own deepest fears – the laughing, carefree young woman taking off on a grand adventure, and never coming back.” Perhaps, but anyone with eyes and without an agenda can also see, on regular display, the mendacious work of sophists and propagandists such as Gillespie, Crouch and Long, aided and enabled by writers such as Adler, many lesser talents and the rest of the dubious cast of characters who populate this sordid drama.
The condescension and pervasive relativism that characterize this piece, and which are especially pronounced at its close, are emblematic of the zeitgeist that rules today’s Earhart media coverage. Adler doubtless believes he’s been fair to me and the conspiracy theorists, and he’s now onto his next assignment, all thoughts of the Earhart story behind him. He knows he’s done his job, to maintain the status quo, and keep the myth, the template, the narrative, the conventional wisdom and the Big Lie about the “Earhart Mystery” alive and well, and he’s led readers to as few of the facts as possible while retaining a semblance of credibility in the eyes of the uninformed.
The aging elephant in the room, the Marshall Islands-Saipan Truth, has again been effectively marginalized while not being completely ignored, but the far more respectable and acceptable Earhart “theories” continue to rule the day. All is well; move along, sheeple, there’s nothing to see here.
A few friends have offered congratulations on my work finally being recognized in such a prestigious publication. I don’t want to seem ungrateful, and being included is far better than being ignored. Adler’s narrative on aspects of the Marshall Islands-Saipan scenario, slanted though it is, is still more than Smithsonian or any of its elite relatives have recently managed, at least to my knowledge. But though Adler named Truth at Last, putting it on the map, so to speak, he didn’t recommend it or describe it in such a way that any but a precious few will to seek it out. I remain curious about who at the magazine decided that Truth at Last should be included in this story. It clearly wasn’t Adler, so if anyone should be thanked, it would be this person, likely the story’s chief editor.
Finally, I think the most unfortunate aspect of the Smithsonian article lies in a profound cynicism that prevented Jerry Adler from understanding and appreciating Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last.
This longtime veteran of the information wars is apparently unable to recognize and appreciate the many years of dedication, hard work and a love and respect for the truth that went into the creation of this book, and he missed a real opportunity to make a difference. Either that, or he did see these things in whole or in part, and was able to overlook them, in compliant duty to the establishment he serves.