Amelia Earhart

[terrytowel]

Originally Posted by TJ

I think he's saying your post wasn't political.

No, he made it clear my post was political. and it is up to HIM to explain how the post was political if HE is making that accusation.

[TJ]

Originally Posted by terrytowel

No, he made it clear my post was political. and it is up to HIM to explain how the post was political if HE is making that accusation.

I think he meant to say "No, it wasn't" a political post instead of "No, you didn't" make a political post. He could have been a bit more clear to avoid any confusion.

I think you are overreacting here. He wasn't making an accusation.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Did they not? I must be thinking of another show.. I've seen several on that incident. Seems fairly straightforward to me. The plane went off course, the pilot who shot it down realized it was a civilian aircraft, but.. Fired anyway.

This.. Happens. I mean within the past 10 years or so another plane was shot down over one of the former soviet republics.. You have the Iranian passenger plane that was shot down by the US Navy, and, perhaps that's the one I'm thinking of that was certainly covered by UM.. Not the shooting down, but the bombing of the captain's minivan..

At least per the wiki no, they never addressed KAL 007.

As to the incident, no, it was anything but straightforward. Plenty of contradictory evidence, cover up, secrecy, and conjecture as to what happened. I don't even know if I would say I have a theory, other than the government explanation (from either the US or Soviet side) was clearly not what happened.

It would have been an excellent UM segment.

[tvscript124]

The "Star Trek:Voyager" episode "The 37s" had a wild take on Earhart: she got abducted by aliens, put in stasis, and got rescued by Voyager in the 24th century.

[Arnold_OldSchool]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A448A6R6sBM

A fun interview/pod on the various theories

[tvscript124]

The Unsolved Couple podcast did a deep dive into the show. If you have not listened to them (I found the link on this UM board), you are missing something special.

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by tvscript124

The Unsolved Couple podcast did a deep dive into the show. If you have not listened to them (I found the link on this UM board), you are missing something special.

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I just don't buy it.. I've learned never say never, but.. That whole idea really pushes the boundaries of belief.

Remember also that the ocean depths around Howland island are really deep. Like 17k feet.. Nearly 50% deeper than the wreck of the Titanic. The Titanic we actually had a halfway decent idea of the area where it went down, and it still took 70 years to find it. And it had a wreckage area of about 15 square miles.. Pending on how the plane landed - or crashed - into the ocean.. There could be next to nothing other than the engine. If it soft crashed.. Perhaps it could still be rather intact.. But, it really isn't overly surprising that we haven't found the plane. Even modern tech.. We can't find MH370

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I just don't buy it.. I've learned never say never, but.. That whole idea really pushes the boundaries of belief.

Remember also that the ocean depths around Howland island are really deep. Like 17k feet.. Nearly 50% deeper than the wreck of the Titanic. The Titanic we actually had a halfway decent idea of the area where it went down, and it still took 70 years to find it. And it had a wreckage area of about 15 square miles.. Pending on how the plane landed - or crashed - into the ocean.. There could be next to nothing other than the engine. If it soft crashed.. Perhaps it could still be rather intact.. But, it really isn't overly surprising that we haven't found the plane. Even modern tech.. We can't find MH370

Just a funny note on that last one. Don Lemon said MH370 was sucked into a black hole. That's one of those TV moments that has you checking your hearing.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by tvscript124

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

Sounds like the podcasters don't really have much historical background.

"Worldwide celebrity" yeah...maybe US plus a few places in Europe. Earhart was far from noteworthy to Japan in 1937. The odds that a random officer on some island would even know who she was, let alone care, are poor to say the least. If they thought she had been engaged in espionage she would be lucky to be a prisoner.

This sounds like someone who is looking at this from a 2026 view with the internet and a deeply interconnected world that is heavily influenced by the western media. 1937 was a totally different world.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

Nope, all of this is just ahistorical.

For the Japanese side.
They were not at war with the US in 1937 and did not want to be. Not only did they not need the propaganda, they absolutely would have to keep it quiet to avoid conflict with the US.

For the US side.
If the Japanese had captured her it was in 1937. Most agree the Americans didn't know until 1944 or so when they got into the islands as part of the war. 7 years had passed and Pearl Harbor happened. There was zero need for additional propaganda against Japan or selling war bonds. We already had a rallying cry, it was the Arizona.

Revealing it would just embarrass the administration for failing to do more in 1937. Furthermore, even if it did direct more attention against Japan that was the opposite of what the administration wanted. FDR wanted war so he could go meddle in Europe, he didn't want to be focused on the Pacific theater (hence why he made no real effort to keep the Philippines or prepare for war there).

Originally Posted by Labonte18

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

US relations with Japan were very different in 1937 than 1941. That said, relations have little do do with how they would have treated a spy.

Her ending up in Saipan is accounted for, not by her going off course, but by her turning back and flying towards the Marianas after failing to locate Howland Island. As best I can tell, no proponent of the Japan theory ever claimed that she ended up there by being absurdly off course.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Nope, all of this is just ahistorical.

For the Japanese side.
They were not at war with the US in 1937 and did not want to be. Not only did they not need the propaganda, they absolutely would have to keep it quiet to avoid conflict with the US.

For the US side.
If the Japanese had captured her it was in 1937. Most agree the Americans didn't know until 1944 or so when they got into the islands as part of the war. 7 years had passed and Pearl Harbor happened. There was zero need for additional propaganda against Japan or selling war bonds. We already had a rallying cry, it was the Arizona.

Revealing it would just embarrass the administration for failing to do more in 1937. Furthermore, even if it did direct more attention against Japan that was the opposite of what the administration wanted. FDR wanted war so he could go meddle in Europe, he didn't want to be focused on the Pacific theater (hence why he made no real effort to keep the Philippines or prepare for war there).




US relations with Japan were very different in 1937 than 1941. That said, relations have little do do with how they would have treated a spy.

Her ending up in Saipan is accounted for, not by her going off course, but by her turning back and flying towards the Marianas after failing to locate Howland Island. As best I can tell, no proponent of the Japan theory ever claimed that she ended up there by being absurdly off course.




I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

Okay, this is good historical context, thanks. Even though the original proponents of the theory have come under fire, this historical background at least suggests why Amelia Earhart being a prisoner might be plausible.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

So.. The Marianas are about 1800 miles East of Howland island. The Electra flies at about 200mph.. Did you mean the Marshall Islands? That would.. At least be much closer to possible. The Marshalls are about 800-1000 miles WEST of Howland. That.. Holds about as much water as making it to Gardner Island. A little further, but much closer than the Marianas.

So.. That's.. 9 hours away for the Marianas.. Okay.

Are you saying she made it that far? I mean, good, strong radio signal at Howland saying she was low on fuel.. admittedly, there was far less radio traffic back in the day, so a signal could fly further without interference.

Or.. Did she head that direction, do a soft landing in the ocean - remember that she wasn't all that good at landing on LAND - and was picked up by a Japanese patrol?

There's another angle here.. Relations were not good between the US and Japan.. Just how bad, well.. We weren't being bombed by them in a sneak attack yet, but.. Japan would have a whole lot of motivation as well to be the heroes that came to her rescue. At that time, to an extent, air travel was.. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it was at least mildly comparable to the space race. Let's say in the 60's that a US spacecraft wound up stranded in space.. If the Soviets were able to mount a rescue mission, it'd be a PR coup for them.. Same thing here with the Japanese, if they managed to rescue Earhart.. That'd be a pretty big feather in their caps. At the very least, that outcome would be better for them than the risk of an execution becoming known.

I don't know if I posted it here or elsewhere, but I went back and did a dive on contemporary newspaper records.. The theory of her being captured by the Japanese actually started.. Well.. The first record of it I could find was in the early 40's, after Pearl Harbor.. Earhart's mother was the one who was saying that's what she believed. There's two things there.. First off.. A theory that didn't exist, started after we went to war.. The other..

Very much reminds me of someone like Noreen Gosch. Just can't accept the obvious. It's understandable.. but..

I kinda think that if Earhart's mother were alive in 1970 - she died in '62 - when the whole crazy theory about her being Irene Boman came about.. It'd be one of those situations where she'd buy into it.

Most times, answers are the simplest things. So.. I'm still all-in on crash and sink, don't get me wrong. Alternatives can be fun to think about.. but the overwhelming odds remain that she's in the same spot she's been since 1937.. On the bottom of the ocean.

The only theory that you really don't have to jump through hoops for is.. Crash and sink. Fred Noonan was considered one of the top navigators in the world.. However... He was also known as being a drunk.. and celestial navigation is.. Well, I would consider it fairly difficult.

One other thing.. The part about her being a global celebrity.. Certainly in the aviation world, she was. How much did the 'common man' overseas know her name? Not quite sure.. In the US.. Most everyone knew of her. Putnam, through his publishing company and her endorsements, made sure of that. In today's world, she'd probably most be considered as an 'influencer'.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

So.. The Marianas are about 1800 miles East of Howland island. The Electra flies at about 200mph.. Did you mean the Marshall Islands? That would.. At least be much closer to possible. The Marshalls are about 800-1000 miles WEST of Howland. That.. Holds about as much water as making it to Gardner Island. A little further, but much closer than the Marianas.

So.. That's.. 9 hours away for the Marianas.. Okay.

Yes, my apologies, a bit of a typo there. Her destination would have been the Marshalls (they are actually both west of Howland, but as you point out the Marshalls are closer). Part of the reason for the typo is that Saipan is in the Marianas, and thus the theory is that she was eventually transported there, but yes initially she would have been aiming to land in the Marshalls.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Are you saying she made it that far? I mean, good, strong radio signal at Howland saying she was low on fuel.. admittedly, there was far less radio traffic back in the day, so a signal could fly further without interference.

I would not agree that radio signals could propagate any more or less then than now, that is affected by many other factors. Shortwave broadcasting today still regularly covers thousands of miles.

But yes, the theory is that she could have flown there. This is based on analysis that was done after the fact that concluded she had sufficient fuel. Her only statement on fuel is extremely vague, and could be interpreted as she was running too low on fuel to continue trying to land at Howland.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Or.. Did she head that direction, do a soft landing in the ocean - remember that she wasn't all that good at landing on LAND - and was picked up by a Japanese patrol?

Doubtful it was a ditching in open water, both due to the pilot skill issue and the lack of appeal of such an option. In a lagoon perhaps.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

There's another angle here.. Relations were not good between the US and Japan.. Just how bad, well.. We weren't being bombed by them in a sneak attack yet, but.. Japan would have a whole lot of motivation as well to be the heroes that came to her rescue. At that time, to an extent, air travel was.. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it was at least mildly comparable to the space race. Let's say in the 60's that a US spacecraft wound up stranded in space.. If the Soviets were able to mount a rescue mission, it'd be a PR coup for them.. Same thing here with the Japanese, if they managed to rescue Earhart.. That'd be a pretty big feather in their caps. At the very least, that outcome would be better for them than the risk of an execution becoming known.

I would posit that Japan could not have cared less about a "feather in their caps" from the western colonial powers they despised and were planning to eject from Asia to form their Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Even if someone in Tokyo was thinking in such a manner, the garrison commander of wherever she showed up would have seen a spy and dealt with her accordingly.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

I don't know if I posted it here or elsewhere, but I went back and did a dive on contemporary newspaper records.. The theory of her being captured by the Japanese actually started.. Well.. The first record of it I could find was in the early 40's, after Pearl Harbor.. Earhart's mother was the one who was saying that's what she believed. There's two things there.. First off.. A theory that didn't exist, started after we went to war.. The other..

I don't find it unusual that the theory showed up once the war started. Until that time few people in the US saw the Japanese as threatening or adversarial. And the main evidence for the theory came about following the occupation of these territories from Japan, which of course only happened as a result of the war. It would be more shocking if the theory had come out in 1937.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Very much reminds me of someone like Noreen Gosch. Just can't accept the obvious. It's understandable.. but..

I kinda think that if Earhart's mother were alive in 1970 - she died in '62 - when the whole crazy theory about her being Irene Boman came about.. It'd be one of those situations where she'd buy into it.

A separate discussion on Gosch should be worth having, but as far as Earhart is concerned I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever since I have never once seen a theory regarding Japanese capture which cited her mother as a source. The evidence for the theory came from GIs in the 40s and was in no way related to her mother.

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Most times, answers are the simplest things. So.. I'm still all-in on crash and sink, don't get me wrong. Alternatives can be fun to think about.. but the overwhelming odds remain that she's in the same spot she's been since 1937.. On the bottom of the ocean.

The only theory that you really don't have to jump through hoops for is.. Crash and sink. Fred Noonan was considered one of the top navigators in the world.. However... He was also known as being a drunk.. and celestial navigation is.. Well, I would consider it fairly difficult.

This seems like an attempt to formulate it via Occam's Razor. However, what one defines as simple is often a matter of how assumptions are counted. Crash and sink ceases to be simple when contradictory evidence then has to be explained. If not Earhart, who was the woman dressed in mens clothing that showed up in Japanese captivity in the late 30's? Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found? Why did the Japanese have a file on Earhart if she crashed well outside their territory and sank in the ocean?

I would say to explain away all of the other evidence requires at least as many hoops as her flying back to a large and easy to hit island chain after realizing that Howland was not going to work out. Even she could have set a bearing and flown it that would have put them in the chain without any particularly good navigation skill.

[biffbronson]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found?

A while back, I saw a video in which the claim was made that researchers in recent years found evidence of what may have been Earhart's plane having been dragged away from its landing site. Of course all of that may well have been a stretch in support of a theory.

But I find it interesting to speculate on any explanation pointing to no visible plane (or raft) for the U.S. Navy or whomever to spot simply because of its removal, soon or shortly after its landing. And such theories, which do not contradict the belief that Earhart did not crash into the ocean, could be confirmed if transmissions believed to be of hers after landing could somehow be verified: it's been claimed she reported being on an island, but not knowing its name.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

I don't find it unusual that the theory showed up once the war started. Until that time few people in the US saw the Japanese as threatening or adversarial. And the main evidence for the theory came about following the occupation of these territories from Japan, which of course only happened as a result of the war. It would be more shocking if the theory had come out in 1937.



A separate discussion on Gosch should be worth having, but as far as Earhart is concerned I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever since I have never once seen a theory regarding Japanese capture which cited her mother as a source. The evidence for the theory came from GIs in the 40s and was in no way related to her mother.



This seems like an attempt to formulate it via Occam's Razor. However, what one defines as simple is often a matter of how assumptions are counted. Crash and sink ceases to be simple when contradictory evidence then has to be explained. If not Earhart, who was the woman dressed in mens clothing that showed up in Japanese captivity in the late 30's? Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found? Why did the Japanese have a file on Earhart if she crashed well outside their territory and sank in the ocean?

I would say to explain away all of the other evidence requires at least as many hoops as her flying back to a large and easy to hit island chain after realizing that Howland was not going to work out. Even she could have set a bearing and flown it that would have put them in the chain without any particularly good navigation skill.

Here's some contemporary accounts..

1938 Philly Inquirer reports that Australia - of all people - were putting out the idea that the US Search for Earhart was used to spy on Japan.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/t...rer/197456907/

So.. Saying that people didn't find Japan 'adversarial' until the war started.. Well, if you're talking the general population, perhaps.. But newspapers were reporting on the tensions, so.. Certainly they were seen that way by leadership

Here is one of the first mentions i can find of the Japanese capture/execution theory.. Seemingly put forward by her husband.. The wording of the article is a tad confusing as they seem to refer to him as both Palmer and Putnam.. Palmer being his middle name

https://www.newspapers.com/article/t...ate/197457227/


That article is from 1942.. The US didn't take Saipan until June of 1944, the Marshall Islands earlier that same year.

Here's another from 1943 where Earhart's mother pushed the theory that she was a captive of Japan

https://www.newspapers.com/article/j...ier/197457465/

So.. The whole idea of her capture didn't start, at least, didn't make the news, until after Pearl Harbor.

Here's one from Earhart's mother from 1949 putting forward the 'secret government mission' theory.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/p...ews/197457589/

More from 1944

https://www.newspapers.com/article/t...ner/197457702/

This one.. From 1970.. Seems to combine the Bolam and Japan theories.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/t...gle/197457839/

That's rather hilarious.. Reminds me of the craziness that people tried to tie 9/11 to some grand conspiracy.