There exist other schools of thought as they relate to Earhart’s fate. The most prevalent alternative explanation relates to the notion that Earhart and Noonan’s plane came down near a Japanese-controlled island and that the two were captured, arrested, and subsequently imprisoned by the rulers. While evidence for the first school of thought is lacking or absent, the evidence for the second is abundant and, frankly, difficult to dispute.
As a corollary to theory number two, the notion has been advanced that Earhart, after being freed from a Japanese prison on mainland China, was repatriated to the United States, where she underwent a period of rehabilitation and, for whatever reason, an identity change. A number of Earhart researchers are persuaded that Earhart lived out the rest of her life under the assumed name of Irene Craigmile Bolam.
It is incumbent upon any researcher/investigator to analyze any and all evidence pertinent to the Earhart/Bolam connection relative to making a determination with regard to the truth.
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
In an attempt to prove that Irene Craigmile Bolam was Amelia Earhart, a man named Tod Swindell arrived at a technique in 1997 wherein transparent photographic overlays were developed such that, he claimed, the facial features of Earhart and Bolam could be compared. Swindell was a member of the Screen Director’s Guild as well as a member of the Amelia Earhart Society. His credentials for conducting a statistically valid photo-analysis technique were nonexistent.
Swindell obtained photographic images of both Earhart and Bolam from a number of sources. He searched for photographs of the two women that shared a common pose. An overlay of one, according to author Rollin Reineck, had to be the same size as the photo of the other. In the final analysis, any significant “problems were overcome,” and, according to Swindell, the experiment revealed that the images of Amelia Earhart from the 1930s aligned “precisely” with those of Irene Craigmile Bolam. In Swindell’s opinion, as well as that of Reineck, it was a perfect match.
Reineck reported that Swindell “persevered and his tireless efforts have successfully produced outstanding results that are acceptable to the scientific community as proof that Irene Bolam and Amelia Earhart were the same person.” Furthermore, Swindell claimed to have done a “forensic analysis on her complete life story.” Quite a claim, indeed, though Swindell had no credentials for such an undertaking, and to date it has not been forthcoming.
In his book Amelia Earhart Survived, Reineck claims that two forensic anthropologists—Dr. Walter Birkby and Dr. Todd W. Fenton—“fully recognized the Earhart Bolam controversy through the quality of Swindell’s extensive physical and personal traits comparisons.” “With the enormous amount of research presented to them,” according to Reineck, they felt that it was hard to disagree with the conclusion that “Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam were one and the same.”
Reineck goes on to claim that “this was the affirmation needed using forensic science methodology” to determine that Earhart and Bolam were one and the same.
There was a second photo-comparison project involving Earhart and Bolam, this one independently conducted by a man named David Allen Deal and had two pages devoted to it in David Bowman’s book, Legerdemain. Deal’s “technique” involved employing photographic overlays of similar poses and then aligning the overlay/photo match to determine a resemblance or otherwise. Deal concludes his study with the comment, “I cannot see how these photographs can fail to convince a reasonable person.”
Swindell and Reineck, as well as Deal, could not have been more mistaken. While there appears to be an impressive array of compelling evidence yielding the strong suggestion that Amelia Earhart did not crash and sink in the Pacific Ocean and that she was returned to the United States under a new identity, the photographic experiments performed by Swindell and Deal have never been accepted by professional photo-comparison experts as part of it. Though Swindell’s photographic analysis has been advanced on dozens of occasions to point out the similarities between Earhart and Bolam, it proves absolutely nothing. Likewise, Deal’s project was so absurdly amateurish that it is difficult to believe anyone found legitimacy in it. While their conclusions were on target, their methodology was flawed.
Since the 1970s, computers and attendant hardware and software have been available with the capacity to conduct scientifically accurate and statistically valid photo-comparison studies. At least two oft-tested, validated, and statistically proven systems for facial pattern recognition have come into common usage by law enforcement organizations worldwide, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Scotland Yard, Interpol, and a number of other local and regional agencies. The most widely employed was developed by Y. Kaya and K. Kobayashi and made available via Academic Press in New York.
These photo-comparison techniques are widely used today, and the results are admissible in court. One such application of one of these scientifically valid systems was employed to make a determination related to whether or not a man named William Henry Roberts, who died in Hamilton County, Texas, in 1949, was actually the famous outlaw Billy the Kid. The results of the study proved that he was (Billy the Kid: Beyond the Grave, Taylor Trade Publishing, 2005).
It is therefore puzzling that Swindell and Deal, while having access to legitimate and recognized state-of-the-art photo-analysis techniques in 1997 chose to ignore them and pursue a line of “research” that amounts to little more than a junior high school classroom project. It is important to emphasize that the results arrived at were purely subjective and possessed no statistical validity whatsoever. They must, therefore, be rejected as proof that Amelia Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam were the same person.
Amateurish research projects by enthusiasts such as the above have created problems for legitimate researchers and investigators in pursuit of the truth. When opponents of the Amelia Earhart = Irene Craigmile Bolam hypothesis want to make a case for the unprofessional and unskilled nature of the proposals advanced by the other side, they invariably point to the projects conducted by Swindell and Deal, which made a mockery of photo-recognition analysis. The truth is, a legitimate, statistically valid photo analysis has, to date, not been undertaken involving Earhart and Bolam.
Further, Reineck’s claim that two “renowned forensic anthropologists . . . felt that it was hard to disagree with” Swindell’s conclusions is either a gross exaggeration or a huge error. If the two men had indeed been “renowned,” they would have known of the availability of existing statistically valid photocomparison techniques. One wonders why Reineck regarded the two men as renowned when at that time such unrefined and amateur techniques as applied by Swindell were completely rejected by those in the photo-comparison business. Reineck’s use of the term “forensic science methodology” when referring to Swindell’s study is completely misleading and untrue.
Based on scientific methodology as well as common sense, the Swindell and Deal photo-comparison projects are completely worthless when trying to establish a connection between Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam and do little more than provide ammunition for the proponents of the status quo.
On the other hand, however, there are numerous other aspects of the Earhart-Bolam connection that are conducive to generating suspicion about the true identity of the woman known as Irene Craigmile Bolam.
To compound the problems associated with the connection between Amelia Earhart and the woman named Irene Craigmile Bolam, there have been two different women carrying the Craigmile identity. An article in the Woodbridge, New Jersey, Times Tribune showed that photos of a woman identified as Bolam were those of a person different from the one Gervais met at the meeting of the Early Flyers Club.
One author stated that Bolam’s height, arm length, hands, and fingers were identical to Earhart’s. He also claimed that their handwriting was identical, though this has never been verified. In his 1970 book Amelia Earhart Lives, author Joe Klaas credits the source of a great deal of the information he placed in the book as Ea
rhart researcher Joe Gervais. Based on the research at his disposal, Klaas put forth the notion that Irene Craigmile Bolam was likely Amelia Earhart. He did not state that it was an absolute fact but that the evidence could easily lead one to believe they were one and the same woman.
Within days following the release of the book, Mrs. Bolam made arrangements for a news conference that was attended by a number of prominent news agencies of the day. An angry Irene Bolam walked up to the podium and with no opening comments stated that the book was a “cruel hoax.” She then slammed the book down on a table and sternly announced, “I am not Amelia Earhart,” turned, and walked out.
This seems like an odd, unnecessary, and perhaps overly defensive reaction by Bolam to the publication. In the first place, Klaas never came right out and stated that Bolam was Earhart but only intimated that it was possible. In the second place, Bolam’s reaction to the book seemed unusual. Amelia Earhart was, in the minds of virtually every living person on earth, a woman of high accomplishment, a heroine, and an inspiration to many. To be so dramatically upset at being compared with such a noted person seems unwarranted. There was nothing whatsoever negative in the association, nothing insulting. It was, in fact, rather complimentary. Most women, one would think, would be pleased with such an identity.
One week following the Bolam news conference, an odd article appeared in the November 21 issue of Time magazine. A portion of it stated:
The woman they name as Amelia is Mrs. Irene Bolam, widow of a businessman and now living in Monroe Township, New Jersey. She emerged long enough last week to ridicule the book as a poorly documented hoax. Before the press conference was over, the woman from New Jersey had convinced many she was not Amelia Earhart, but some wondered if she were really Mrs. Irene Bolam.
The last line is quite puzzling, but no explanation accompanied it.
For seven weeks following the release of Amelia Earhart Lives it was a best seller. Then McGraw-Hill suddenly pulled it from distribution and recalled all copies. Since there was nothing libelous in the publication, the action by McGraw-Hill is curious. Though no details were ever learned, it has been suggested that the move to cease publication and retrieve all copies was ordered by the U.S. government. The book has since been reissued.
Months later, Irene Bolam filed a two-million-dollar lawsuit against author Joe Klaas and researcher Joe Gervais for “invasion of privacy and libel.” A definition of libel, according to the New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, states, “A published statement, photograph, etc. which without due cause has the result, or is intended to have the result, of bringing its subject into disrepute.” A thorough reading of Amelia Earhart Lives reveals nothing libelous, scandalous, slanderous, or even remotely negative regarding Mrs. Bolam. If anything, she is depicted as a charming and respected individual.
Five years passed, and the lawsuit was never brought to court. The delays were not the result of action by the defendants but rather by Irene Bolam herself. The defendants—Klaas and Gervais, and presumably McGraw-Hill—were interested in settling the case and expressed a willingness to arrive at a suitable determination if Irene Bolam would provide, in the presence of the judge, her fingerprints in order to prove once and for all that she was not Amelia Earhart. Bolam refused, and her refusal ultimately resulted in the relinquishment of a sizable settlement.
Less than one month later, the suit against Klaas and Gervais was dismissed for “factual errata.” One of the errors pointed out was that the book referred to Guy Bolam as her “alleged” husband when in fact they were legally married. McGraw-Hill settled out of court for $60,000. The attorney for McGraw-Hill was convinced that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same but determined it would have been too costly for the publishing company to pursue the case. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that Irene Craigmile Bolam did not wish her true identity a matter of legal record.
Irene Craigmile Bolam passed away on July 7, 1982. According to stipulations in her will, her body was to be donated to science with the explicit instructions that she was not to be fingerprinted or otherwise identified. Her insistence that she never be officially recognized alive or dead is indeed curious. On October 26, an article appeared in the Woodbridge, New Jersey, Times Tribune: In part, it stated:
After her death, rumors surfaced that [Irene Bolam] was, in fact, Amelia Earhart, the famous aviatrix who disappeared on a flight between Lae, New Guinea, and Howland Island on 2 July 1937. Now, Irene Bolam’s fingerprints are one of [New Jersey’s] best kept secrets.
Irene Bolam’s prints were denied to police agencies, the county prosecutor, Mrs. Bolam’s doctor, state medical examiners, hospital authorities, and Mrs. Bolam’s immediate family. Each person, in turn, had either found no standing to enter the case or had come up against a legal stone wall.
The death certificate was dated August 17, 1982. All of the spaces on the death certificate were filled out except for two that requested the names of the deceased’s mother and father. Both sections were marked “Unknown.”
A man who claimed to be Irene Bolam’s son—Clarence Heller—expressed an interest in pursuing a solution to the Earhart-Bolam controversy but was denied. Heller’s wife was quoted as saying that the officials at the medical school where Bolam’s body had been sent had disguised the corpse “in some manner so that only one or two people in the school knew which . . . was hers.” She also said that “the attorney for the school told her that a prior arrangement made with Mrs. Bolam precluded the release of her fingerprints.”
In other words, not only did Bolam refuse to provide fingerprints while she was alive, she made arrangements to keep them a secret after her death. One cannot help but wonder why. According to author Reineck, an April 23, 1992, letter from Dr. Gordon J. McDonald of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey stated that Irene Bolam’s body was ultimately cremated and the ashes were buried in an unmarked grave. The letter also stated that the medical school had no information regarding “any next of kin of Irene Bolam.”
Bolam’s death certificate was signed by Dr. Ming Fong Hsu of Roosevelt Hospital in Edison, New Jersey. He listed Guy Bolam as the individual providing Irene’s personal information. Guy Bolam, however, had passed away twelve years earlier in 1970.
The notation of “unknown” applied to the form requesting the names of Bolam’s parents, as well as the statement that the medical school had no information relating to Bolam’s next of kin, are difficult to comprehend. Surely, such information would not have been difficult to obtain. What seems to be apparent was that there was an orchestrated attempt at keeping relevant identity information regarding Irene Craigmile Bolam from being obtained. The obvious question is why was this done? Research into the life of Irene Craigmile Bolam from 1945 until her passing in 1982 reveals nothing that would necessitate or even suggest this level of secrecy. Unless, of course, Mrs. Bolam was, in fact, Amelia Earhart.
There exists an impressive body of evidence that carries the strong suggestion, if not outright logic, that:
Amelia Earhart was involved in a covert government-endorsed and government-sponsored operation wherein the objective was to take photographs of real and potential Japanese military installations on one or more of the mandated islands in the Pacific Ocean. This information was kept from the American public.
Earhart friend and navigator Fred Noonan survived the alleged “crashed and sank” event originated and perpetrated by the United States government.
Earhart and Noonan were captured by the Japanese military and held prisoner, perhaps as long as eight years.
Earhart was liberated from a Japanese prison camp in China and repatriated to the United States under a new identity—Irene Craigmile.
There exists a litany of mysteries—solved and unsolved—revolving around the disappearance of Earhart, mysteries that add layer upon layer of suspicion and enigma related to government involvement and cover-up.
Earhart lived out the remainder of her
life under a different identity—Irene Craigmile Bolam—and remained unknown to the world at large but well known to close friends and intimates.
Despite the abundance of evidence and the clear indication that Earhart was involved in a clandestine operation and resumed life under a new identity, there exist a number of traditionalists who cling to the government’s position and who further deny any credibility in, and seek to discredit, the Amelia Earhart–Irene Craigmile Bolam association. In their effort to “prove” that Irene Craigmile Bolam was not Amelia Earhart, a handful of enthusiasts employing Internet sites—among them Ronald Bright, Mike Campbell, and Bill Prymak—have focused on a few select associations but ignore the entire body of evidence available. They have stated that “no hard evidence exists to support an Earhart survival theory.” The truth is that such evidence—from a number of sources and at a variety of levels—is quite abundant. The aforementioned Earhart hobbyists, along with a few others, adhere to the U.S. government position that the aviatrix crashed and sank near Howland Island. Their arguments, all of which add to the great theater of Earhart drama and theory, conveniently ignore the abundance of the related mysteries, circumstances, contradictions, confusions, and clear attempts at deception.
Amelia Earhart Page 19