Sept. 5: Another bitter disappointment
Nobody likes a whiner, but this latest setback is just about more than I can stand. About six weeks ago, the producer of “A Touch of Grey,” a radio talk show hosted by Carole Marks that airs on Sunday afternoons in Los Angeles, New York and a few other unspecified locations (see previous post), expressed Carole’s interest in having me on her show after I sent them my standard query. I also sent Carole a signed copy of Truth at Last when the producer requested such. A few weeks ago I was told my taped 15-minute segment would air Sept. 1, and I looked forward to the help that exposure in the New York and Los Angeles markets might bring to an unknown book struggling to sell a few copies each day.
I didn’t listen online on Sunday, Sept. 1, as I really don’t like to hear my own voice at this point, but my good friend Jack in Knoxville, an avid supporter of the cause, was tuned in to hear Marks and me discuss the Earhart case. When he emailed me with the news that my segment didn’t run, I was taken aback.
Not until today, Thursday, did I learn from the producer that my segment with Marks was in the SECOND HOUR of the program, which doesn’t run in Los Angeles or New York! Where the program did air, she didn’t say, but it was a very small town with few listeners. You can imagine my surprise to learn this happy news. Never did this producer ever tell me that the show was two hours long, nor did she say my segment wouldn’t air in New York or Los Angeles as we proceeded through the process.
This sort of unethical, uncaring and impersonal treatment has become much too commonplace in today’s marketplace, but I can’t just sit by quietly without complaint. I didn’t make much of a fuss with this producer in my reply, simply writing, “If my segment didn’t air in New York or LA, few if any were listening where it did air. I wish you had told me that before we started. I was led to believe the interview would go in LA and New York; otherwise, what was the point?” Of course the producer didn’t reply to my message.
I don’t have Carole Marks’ email or phone number, but I do have her snail mail address in Connecticut, and will register my dissatisfaction with her in this manner. This is but the latest in a long series of short shrifts I’ve experienced in my efforts to get the word out about the ongoing Earhart travesty. Even those who seem interested in helping this worthy cause often turn out to be insincere. When it comes to the truth in the Earhart disappearance, Rodney Dangerfield got far more respect than Amelia — much less an obscure writer — gets now.
Oct. 17: American Heritage, Crouch do it again
Leonore, an alert Earhart enthusiast from the UK, informed me that Tom Crouch and American Heritage magazine had once again teamed up to do their worst in misinforming readers about the so-called Earhart mystery and recent efforts to solve it.
The lengthy article, “Amelia Found?“ was a virtual repeat of Crouch’s Summer 2007 puff piece in Information and Technology Magazine that extolled Ric Gillespie, TIGHAR and Elgen Long, while curtly dismissing Fred Goerner, Tom Devine and all who believe in the Saipan truth as “conspiracy theorists.”
At the urging of my UK correspondent, I wrote the below missive to American Heritage and Tom Crouch, knowing of course that I was completely wasting my time, but keeping mind that the old axiom, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained,“ should always be respected. Following is the letter I just wrote to American Heritage editors:
I’ve just been informed about Tom Crouch’s Summer 2012 article about Amelia Earhart in American Heritage, and read it with mounting disgust. Once again, American Heritage and Tom Crouch, senior Smithsonian Air and Space curator, have teamed up to write almost exactly the same article they put out in 2007 for the 70th anniversary of AE’s loss. The piece is an extensive discussion of TIGHAR’s vapid, worn-out theory, albeit with a passing mention of the possibility that Gillespie might be wrong, because “most researchers agree that AE crashed and sank near Howland Island“ or something similarly inane. Mr. Crouch’s piece was probably written before the late June 2012 publication of my new book, Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, which presents the most comprehensive case ever for the presence and death of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan, but that has little or nothing to do with Mr. Crouch or American Heritage‘s aversion to the truth in the Earhart case.
As professional historians, it’s impossible to imagine that Mr. Crouch and the editors at American Heritage are unaware of the mountains of evidence that place Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan. Thousands, if not millions of murderers have gone to their executions based on the tiniest fraction of the witness testimony that’s been given by many that places Earhart and Noonan on Saipan. Even if you reject this overwhelming evidence, can you honestly claim that Mr. Crouch’s piece is a fair treatment of the massive evidence gathered over many decades by researchers such as Fred Goerner, Joe Gervais, Tom Devine, Vincent V. Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Bill Prymak and others? Of course not. Something else is afoot here, driven by the same abject motivations that have informed the government-media establishment’s policy of complete denial of the truth in the Earhart disappearance from the beginning — protecting FDR’s reputation and their own longtime investments in the TIGHAR and crash-and-sank deceptions being prominent among them. Can anyone who is remotely informed doubt that the U.S. government and its media toadies, of which American Heritage is in the vanguard, are still engaged in the willful and purposeful suppression of the truth?
I dissected Mr. Crouch’s 2007 piece line by line in the final chapter of my book, and clearly exposed his assertions as pure U.S. government-issue poppycock. (Due to the media’s complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of my book, Mr. Crouch and American Heritage may also be unaware of it. In that case I have attached the section of its last chapter that addresses Mr. Crouch’s 2007 article, as well as the following section, which addresses Gillespie’s fantasies). Now, in his 2012 repeat of the same nonsense, over several pages of propaganda, ostensibly covering the gamut of ideas about AE’s fate, Mr. Crouch could manage only the following about Saipan, far less than even in 2007, when he at least mentioned Devine’s work, although inaccurately and dismissively. Note the prominent use of the tainted word “conspiracy“ in his reference:
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.
Not “a shred,“ insists Mr. Crouch. How can he so blithely ignore the hundreds of freely given and honest accounts of witnesses in the Marshalls and Saipan, GI veterans of Saipan, and three flag officer statements to Fred Goerner that Earhart died on Saipan, and much more? Quite easily, apparently, if he — and you — have an agenda of complete denial of the truth and suppression of the facts.
American Heritage needs to be reminded that their readership is not totally populated by morons and lemmings, 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.
This letter has never been published, as of today’s update (Jan. 9, 2014).