ÒEarhart PhotoÓ Debunker
Debunked?
Perhaps everyone should have been a bit more
skeptical when the British Guardian came
out with its article with the confident
sweeping headline, ÒBlogger discredits claim Amelia Earhart was taken prisoner
by Japan.Ó As we noted in our previous article in which we accepted
the ÒdiscoveryÓ of the photo in a 1935 Japanese travel book as valid, the
apparent discrediting of the photo did absolutely nothing to undermine the wealth
of evidence that Earhart was, indeed, captured by the Japanese, in spite of The GuardianÕs major overselling of the
new purported evidence: ÒBut serious doubts now surround the filmÕs premise after a Tokyo-based blogger unearthed the same
photograph in the archives of the National Diet Library, JapanÕs national
library.Ó (Emphasis added)
The Guardian did go to some length to give
the discovery quite an appearance of authenticity. They provided links to the travel book
including the photo and page numbers.
In addition, they gave us this quote from the blogger himself:
Kota Yamano,
a military history blogger who unearthed the Japanese photograph, said it took
him just 30 minutes to effectively debunk the documentaryÕs central claim.
ÒI have never believed
the theory that Earhart was captured by the Japanese military, so I decided to
find out for myself,Ó Yamano told the Guardian. ÒI
was sure that the same photo must be on record in Japan.Ó
Yamano ran an online search using the keyword ÒJaluit atollÓ and a decade-long timeframe starting in 1930.
ÒThe photo was the 10th
item that came up,Ó he said. ÒI was really happy when I saw it. I find it
strange that the documentary makers didnÕt confirm the date of the photograph
or the publication in which it originally appeared. ThatÕs the first thing they
should have done.Ó
The initial impression one gets—the
impression that The Guardian clearly
wanted us to take with us—is that this Yamano
is quite an enterprising researcher.
But the impression does not bear close scrutiny well.
Yamano claims that the
motivation for his effort was the belief that the Japanese military did not
capture Earhart. The main problem of the supposed evidence presented by the
photo is that it is not strong enough to convince any skeptical person that it
actually shows Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in the custody of the
Japanese. The natural reaction of a
predisposed doubter is simply to reject the photo out of hand.
The second paragraph in the Yamano
quote, then, amounts to a non sequitur.
From the outset, what could conducting a search for a copy of the
photograph presented in the History Channel program have to do with
anything? It really looks like a
waste of time. Did Yamano have some premonition that he might find evidence
that would apparently prove that the photograph had been taken well before
EarhartÕs disappearance? Going in,
the endeavor looks like a wild goose chase.
Furthermore, I, for one, find it quite difficult
to believe that a supposed Òhistory buffÓ with the apparent independence of
mind that Yamano has displayed, someone determined to
find out things for himself, would, at this late date, still believe that
Earhart was not captured by the Japanese.
Could such a discriminating researcher as Yamano,
as presented to us by The Guardian, be
completely oblivious to the mountain of evidence supporting that fact? Put simply, could Yamano
really know nothing about the revelations in Mike CampbellÕs Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last or the
numerous other books that it builds upon?
Looking back on it, what The Guardian has given us sounds very much like a concocted story
to provide a superficially plausible explanation for how this photograph was
found in an old Japanese travel book.
Japanese Debunker Hoist on Own Dating Petard
Now we learn from a July 15 press release issued
by the government of the Marshall Islands that Yamano
is mistaken about the impossibility of the photograph having been made at a
date later than 1935. Here is how
Rich Martini, who was an early poster of the release on his web site sums it up: ÒTurns out the Ôbook
copyrighted in 1935Õ could
not be a book copyrighted in 1935, because the docks in Jaluit
did not exist until 1936.Ó The date on the Japanese travelogue, as Martini
explains it, is essentially meaningless because the travel book is not a real
book but is more like a loose-leaf scrapbook and pictures could have been
inserted at any time.
This important new development in
the Earhart saga came to my attention when Campbell posted an article about it
on his web site on July 28:
Marshalls release
is latest twist in photo travesty
Lest those
who might have thought the latest chapter of the continuing
Amelia Earhart disinformation campaign had come to a neat and tidy close
with the July 11 report from
The Guardian
online that the photograph of the dock at Jaluit
in the Marshall Islands had been found in a Japanese travel book published
in 1935, we now have
another, not unexpected, loose end. You might recall that The Guardian reported that ÒThe image was part of a Japanese-language travelogue about the South Seas that was
published almost two years before Earhart disappeared.Ó
ÒDoes it
get any worse than this?Ó I wrote in my July 12 review of the latest History Channel propaganda
effort, ÒAmelia
Earhart: The Lost Evidence.Ó ÒIf the report is true, whatever
the photo claims that began with NBCÕs Wednesday, July 5 promotion barrage, are
now entirely destroyed, discredited and defunct.Ó
I didnÕt need
a report from a Japanese blogger to convince me that the claims made by
Les Kinney, Morningstar Entertainment and the History Channel, first broadcast nationwide by NBC News on July 5, were false and totally without
substance. I was the first to publicly denounce KinneyÕs assertions for the delusions (at
best) that they were, and IÕd known about this
shameless plot to grab headlines under false pretenses for
many months, since a reader from Pennsylvania procured the same photo from
the National Archives in College Park, Md., and sent it to me.
Now Karen Earnshaw, a journalist who lives in the Marshall Islands
and wrote June 26, 2015 and July 9, 2015 stories in the U.K.Õs Daily Mail online about Dick SpinkÕs discoveries at Mili AtollÕs Endriken
Islands, has informed me in a July 16 email about a Marshallese
government press release she found on Rich MartiniÕs blog. (The Marshall Islands
press release and the remainder of CampbellÕs article along with a lively
discussion board can be found at Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last.)
The big revelation in CampbellÕs article is that
this press release, which in all likelihood went to most of the major press
organs, has apparently been completely ignored. Put another way, they took a shot at #4
in the Seventeen Techniques for
Truth Suppression,
ÒKnock down straw men,Ó and it blew up in their face. Now they have decided to fall back on old
favorite #1, ÒDummy up.Ó
Fake News Close to Home
One example of the dummying up is particularly
poignant to me since it has some connection to my own formal education. Back in March, my alma mater Davidson
College (which also happens to be the alma mater of the late Clinton White
House counsel, Vince Foster) offered a free online two-week course on the subject of fake
news. One of their contributing
ÒexpertsÓ was National Public Radio (NPR) reporter Camila
Domonoske, also a Davidson graduate. Here we can watch one of her contributions to the course,
explaining why the Òfake newsÓ term has almost lost all meaning.
She makes some good points, but I think we can
agree, though, that if the Marshall Islands officials are correct, the widely
disseminated report that the key photograph in the History Channel Earhart
presentation had to have been made in 1935 or before is not true. That is to
say, what was widely reported as news has turned out to be, in fact, fake
news.
As it happens, the reporter who put out this
fake news for NPR online very quickly in the wake of the story from The Guardian was young Camila Domonoske,
herself. I can find no indication online that NPR
or The Guardian or any other news organ
has retracted its Japanese-debunker story or has clarified it in any way in
light of the latest Marshall Islands revelations, so we may now accuse them all
of trading in fake news on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
David Martin
August 2, 2017
Home Page
Columns
Column 5 Archive Contact