For example, while the Earhart = Bolam debunkers have focused on government-supplied information and traditional versions of the flight around the world and its aftermath to maintain a certain historical status quo, they have conveniently disregarded or overlooked the array of other mysteries surrounding the Earhart case, including: the Howland Island conundrum, the clandestine visits of Bernard Baruch and Admiral Westover with Earhart, the modifications of the Electra, including the installation of cameras, the Wilbur Rothar mystery, the tampering with the logs from the Itasca, the illogical and botched search for the Electra, the changes in the flight path, the government files on Earhart labeled top secret, the Mili Atoll landing, the false information released by the U.S. government related to weather during Earhart’s disappearance, Earhart’s role as a spy, the controversy involving Fred Noonan, the mystery letter sent to Jaluit, the government document that refers to Earhart’s application for Japanese citizenship, the Tokyo Rose controversy, the Morgenthau memo, the discovery of the Electra at Aslito Airfield, the Forrestal mystery, the circumstances involving Forrestal’s death, the Weihsien Prison Camp rescue, Irene Craigmile Bolam, Guy Bolam, Irene Bolam’s refusal to be fingerprinted or otherwise identified, Irene Bolam’s confusing death certificate, and more.
There exist several Amelia Earhart–related Internet sites that do little more than add to the confusion and do little to assist in resolving anything. An example of one is “The Controversial History of Amelia Earhart’s Last Flight and Most Prominent Survival Account.” The site lists as authors and contributors Randall Brink, Fred Goerner, Vincent Loomis, Joe Gervais, Donald Moyer Wilson, and Rollin Reineck. In a somewhat self-aggrandizing effort, the site is labeled by the authors as “academically objective.”
Even a cursory examination of the site yields the notion that it would fail any test related to academic integrity, and there is certainly nothing objective about it.
One common argument that has been advanced by the vocal but small Earhart-is-not-Bolam group relates to the notion that the aviatrix was five feet, seven inches tall, in possession of a trim physique, and flat-chested, whereas Irene Craigmile Bolam was five feet, five inches tall, possessed of a “full physique,” and had a plump, ample bosom and thus physically bore no resemblance to Earhart at all. Earhart enthusiast Ron Bright wrote, “I think it is pretty common knowledge that people who are skinny into their 40s generally remain skinny the rest of their lives.” This absurd statement is contradicted by science, medical research and records, and everyday experience and observation.
Absent from this argument are factors relating to aging, health, stress, and logic. In 1965, when Irene Craigmile Bolam was identified by author Joe Gervais as possibly being Amelia Earhart, the aviatrix would have been sixty-eight years old. Data from physicians, medical specialists, chiropractors, health agencies, and other health-associated entities clearly show that as one ages, one’s height and stature is easily and often reduced as a result of deterioration in the skeletal and cartilaginous structure, particularly in the area of the spine. Losing two inches in height during old age, say, from five feet, seven inches to five feet, five inches is not only a possibility, it is quite common.
Photographs and descriptions of Irene Craigmile Bolam portray her as a bit overweight, perhaps as much as forty pounds or more. Weight gain in the aged, like height reduction, is common and normal. The weight differences between Amelia Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam can be the result of aging, the ever-common hormonal changes related to such, diet, illness, stress, and sedentary lifestyle. It must also be pointed out that during her eight years of imprisonment, and given what has been learned about the terrible conditions at the Weihsien Prison camp in China, the notion of stress and physical trauma contributing to the state of her health and well-being cannot be discounted.
Another argument put forth by the traditionalists relates to the presumed notion that Earhart, if returning to the United States under an assumed identity, never made contact with her family, and they wonder in print how such a thing can come to pass. The doubters only assume that Earhart had no contact with family members. The possibility that she did exists.
Assuming for a moment that Earhart had been a prisoner of the Japanese for eight years, held under stressful conditions with inadequate nutrition and poor, if any, medical care, the woman who returned to the United States would be decidedly different in appearance, attitude, and mental state than the one who left on the around-the-world flight. Given that she quite possibly was involved in a failed government spy mission, given that she may have been associated with the infamous Tokyo Rose radio broadcasts, and given that evidence suggests that she may have actually colluded with the Japanese during her time there, it is little wonder that Amelia Earhart wanted nothing to do with that identity. She would become a marked woman. Furthermore, it can easily be concluded that her anonymity and assumed new identity was encouraged and abetted by the U.S. government and its leaders. If the truth had come out, a number of prominent political and military leaders would have suffered.
The only solution was to have the government maintain its oft-quoted “crash and sank” version of what happened on July 2, 1937, and facilitate the passage of the surviving Amelia Earhart into a new and different segment of society, hoping all the while that the deception, as well as those involved in perpetrating it, would never be found out.
• 43 •Analysis
History is a set of lies agreed upon.
—Napoleon Bonaparte
History would be a wonderful thing if only it were true.
—Leo Tolstoy
History doesn’t repeat itself. Historians repeat each other.
—Oscar Wilde
If Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan crashed and sank near Howland Island in the Pacific Ocean during an around-the-world flight as the U.S. government insisted, then there would have been no reason to have all documents pertaining to such classified as top secret by the War Department. What could there possibly be in the files on the disappearance of a civilian aircraft that caused such a decision to be made? The obvious conclusion is that the sequence of events prior to, during, and following the disappearance of Earhart did not happen the way it was officially reported.
With the passage of three-quarters of a century, layer after layer of mystery and deception have been identified and peeled back bit by bit. In the process, the most reliable evidence that has surfaced and survived scrutiny points to the notion that the official line on what happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan is a lie, and furthermore, there is little to no evidence whatsoever to support the official version.
On the other hand, there exists an abundance of credible evidence to support the contention that Earhart survived, was taken prisoner, and was repatriated to the United States. The controversy surrounding the connection between Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam did little to dispel the ever-growing suspicion that the two women were the same and that Amelia Earhart, under a different identity, did indeed return from beyond the grave.
The question that naturally arises when considering the Amelia Earhart–Irene Bolam connection is: If people knew of Earhart’s repatriation and her new life under an alias, and there were many who knew, how could it have been kept a secret for so long?
There are a couple of ways of looking at this conundrum. It is clear that a number of people were aware of Earhart’s secret identity and that they kept it among themselves for the most part, being somewhat protective of her privacy. The truth is, Earhart’s new identity was not as secret as some like to believe.
It must also be pointed out that there are several historic cases on record of people who have “died” or “disappeared” and returned under different identities and led relatively quiet and secretive lives. These individuals were visited and identified by their long-time companions but remained relatively unknown to the rest of the world.
There are several important examples of noted individuals living “beyond the grave.” O
ne of the most famous was the outlaw Billy the Kid. Alleged to have been shot and killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett in 1881, the Kid, whose real name was William Henry Roberts, survived and lived in hiding for most of the rest of his life under aliases. He died in 1950 in Texas. The evidence for his return and amazing life is documented in the book Billy the Kid: Beyond the Grave (Taylor Trade, 2005).
The results and subsequent reporting of the investigation into Roberts represented a dramatic and significant departure from the long-accepted, traditional history of the outlaw, but the evidence was there and is yet to be refuted. The traditional history, as it turned out, amounted to little more than so-called historians repeating what Sheriff Pat Garrett wrote in his now oft-discredited book, The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid. Once this was done, the historians simply repeated one another over the years. An examination of the hundreds of books and articles related to Billy the Kid reveals there is little in the way of original research presented in any of them and no investigation whatsoever.
Another famous outlaw, Butch Cassidy, was reputed to have perished in a shootout with the Bolivian army in 1908. The truth, however, is that the shootout never happened and was a concoction of a writer of fiction as well as the film industry and accepted as legitimate history by the public. In fact, Cassidy, whose real name was Robert Leroy Parker, returned to the United States, where he lived out the remainder of his life, eventually passing away in Spokane, Washington, in 1937 (Butch Cassidy: Beyond the Grave, Taylor Trade, 2012).
John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln, lived under aliases for thirty-eight years following his escape from Ford’s Theater in 1865. His story is detailed in John Wilkes Booth: Beyond the Grave (Taylor Trade, 2013).
The same pattern was followed in the studies and research related to Amelia Earhart: it is easier to repeat what others have written than it is to conduct intensive and meaningful investigation into the subject.
There are other examples, but these few point out that it lies well within the realm of possibility and probability that an individual can “die” or “disappear” and then return at a later date and live in relative anonymity for decades.
Monsignor James Francis Kelley’s role in the Irene Craigmile Bolam controversy has been attacked and criticized by some who remain tethered to the U.S. government version of Earhart’s fate. They are quick to point out that Kelley made up his role in repatriating the aviatrix and that in his later years had slipped mentally, perhaps suffered from dementia, and was prone to telling outrageous stories. To refer to one who holds an opposing point of view as a nut is a common tactic with those who disagree with their contentions. To demean a source of information is easy; to take the time and apply the energy necessary to study and understand the available information and place oneself in the position of offering intelligent critical thought requires some effort.
If Monsignor Kelley was clearly prone to the above-mentioned transgressions and was demented, he would not have been named president of Seton Hall College (now Seton Hall University). Nor would he have been part of a social circle that included the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, J. Edgar Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, Cardinal Spellman, and more, a circle in which he was active and in which he thrived until his passing.
Mrs. Helen Barber was a friend of Monsignor Kelley and his neighbor on St. Croix Island. In 1981, when Kelley was seventy-eight years old, he and Barber were having lunch together when he related to her his role in rehabilitating Amelia Earhart. He was selected, he said, by his friend Cardinal Spellman because of his background in psychiatry and his Jungian-related studies. He told Barber that he boarded Earhart in his New Jersey estate and provided her with “spiritual, emotional, and psychological help.” He confessed that he worked closely with U.S. government officials in selecting a new identity for Earhart. Kelley also related to Barber that Earhart was adamant about keeping her survival and return to the United States secret. The extant evidence supports Kelley’s version of events.
Confirming Helen Barber’s story was Donald DeKoster. Like Barber, DeKoster had been a neighbor and friend of Monsignor Kelley and had known him for well over a decade. DeKoster told interviewer and author Rollin C. Reineck that he and Kelley had discussed the Earhart-Bolam episode a number of times, that he, Kelley, assisted in her return to the United States, that Earhart refused to maintain her true identity, and that she feared being associated with the Tokyo Rose affair. Kelley related a number of details relative to his connection with church and U.S. government officials that left DeKoster with no doubt of Kelley’s involvement and veracity. Kelley told DeKoster that Amelia Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam were one and the same person.
It may well be a fact that Monsignor Kelley suffered dementia during his later years, but well before he grew infirm his role in the repatriation of Amelia Earhart was known to a number of political, military, and church leaders. It was only Kelley’s detractors who played the dementia card; those who knew the monsignor well never considered it an issue.
It is a truth that the families of both Amelia Earhart and Irene Craigmile Bolam have never fully cooperated in the resolution of the identity mystery. At one time, Earhart’s sister, Muriel Morrissey, admitted she was “friends” with Irene Craigmile Bolam. There was little likelihood that Morrissey would have ever encountered Bolam during the normal courses of their lives. This leads to the supposition that the two sisters did indeed communicate during their lifetimes.
Over the years, the anti-Irene Craigmile Bolam = Amelia Earhart faction has been vocal in insisting that Earhart never returned to the United States, that she certainly perished in a crash in the Pacific Ocean. While insistent, however, they have provided no substantive evidence whatsoever for their position, only parroting the government line and maintaining the status quo.
Opponents of the Earhart = Bolam connection have stated that they have “proved” there is no relationship whatsoever. The truth is, they have proved nothing—they have only offered opinions related to one side of the controversy.
At one point during his investigation and research, Joe Gervais received a letter from Irene Craigmile Bolam. In the missive, she stated, in reference to people she named, “each knew us well as Amelia Earhart and Irene Craigmile.” This is a telling statement.
Another statement made by Earhart’s close friend Jackie Cochran is likewise revealing. At an event honoring heroic female pilots, Earhart’s name was brought up. In response, Cochran said, “Amelia would never show her face here after what she did.”
What, exactly, did Cochran know? Cochran was regarded by many as being Earhart’s best friend. It was long rumored that Cochran, as well as a few other acquaintances, was aware of Earhart’s repatriation and new identity.
In the end, the evidence in support of Amelia Earhart surviving her ill-fated around-the-world flight and living out her years until 1982 is far greater and more substantive than the evidence against it.
America’s “first lady of the air” led an adventure-filled life and became a prominent worldwide personality and celebrity. She did not disappear during her planned flight around the world as reported but for the next eight years found herself in a troubled, conflicting, disastrous, and destructive environment and way of life. From this she was eventually rescued, but she was never the same—in name, personality, or intentions, never returned to her previous status as one of the world’s most admired women. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that she did return but lived out her life in relative obscurity and anonymity for thirty-seven years.
Who can fully appreciate how her life had changed as a result of her experiences, her imprisonment, her clandestine repatriation? Who can know about the nightmares she must have endured and the adjustments that had to be made in order for her to return to some semblance of a normal life? There is so much to learn, so much more information about this amazing woman that has yet to come to light. The search continues.
Selected Bibliography
Backus, Jean L. Letters from Amelia. Boston: Beacon, 1982.
Blau, Melinda. Whatever Happened to Amelia? New York: Contemporary Perspectives, 1977.
Bowman, David K. Legerdemain. Shaw, CA: Saga, 2007.
Brennan, T. C. “Buddy.” Witness to the Execution. Frederick, CO: Renaissance House, 1988.
Briand, Paul. Daughter of the Sky. New York: Pyramid, 1967.
Butler, Susan. East to the Dawn: The Life of Amelia Earhart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Campbell, Mike. Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last. Camp Hill, PA: Sunbury, 2012.
———. With Our Own Eyes. With Thomas Devine. Lancaster, OH: Lucky, 2002.
Carrington, George Carson. Amelia Earhart: What Really Happened at Howland Island. Vancouver, BC: ITMB, 1989.
Devine, Thomas, and Richard Daley. Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident. Frederick, CO: Renaissance House, 1987.
Earhart, Amelia. Last Flight. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937.
———. 20 Hrs. 40 Min.: Our Flight in the Friendship. New York: Putnam, 1928.
Garst, Doris Shannon. Amelia Earhart. New York: J. Messner, 1947.
Goerner, Fred. The Search for Amelia Earhart. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Hagen, Barbara Shook. Amelia’s Flying Machine. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
Kaya, Y., and K. Kobayashi. “A Basic Study on Human Faces Recognition.” In Frontiers of Pattern Recognition, edited by S. Watanabe, 265–289. New York: Academic, 1972.
Amelia Earhart Page 20