January 19, 2004

Col. Reineck,

On page 68 of your book there is something that seems to be an advertisement by Earhart and Putnam for a navigator. I’d like your permission to reproduce it on the TIGHAR website so that people can see what I mean.

Unlike all of the other illustrations in your book, it has no caption nor is there a credit and you don’t mention it anywhere in the text. I’ve never seen that document before. Where did it come from?

LTM,
Ric

January 19, 2004

Ric,

A good question. Yes you may put in on your web site.

The reason there is no caption is that I had nothing to say about the item. I received the item from Major Joe Gervais. His knowledge concerning the item is about the same as mine.

I did find the item interesting as it clearly spells out what type of professional they want. It appears that GPP would make the selection. Of course in those days, the choice was rather limited. The other thing I find interesting is that there is no mention of salary. Another interesting point is that it appears to be in the shape of a bulletin to be place at airports or other places where aviators of the day would hang out. I don't think it was meant for a newspaper. Sorry I can’t be of any more help.

Rollin C. Reineck – Kailua, HI

January 20, 2004

Thank you. We’ll put it up on the TIGHAR website (credited to your book of course) as part of these discussions. Do I understand you correctly that neither you nor Major Gervais know the origin of the document but that you both believe it to be authentic? Have you considered the possibility that it might be a hoax?

LTM,
Ric

January 21, 2004

Ric,

Naturally, I always consider the possiblity that a document or a statement made is a hoax. However, I don’t have a litmus test to make the determination. As you, I look at other evidence that supports the document or statement.

In this particular case, I thought the document was somewhat innocuous. It would seem logical that AE would put out the word that she needed a navigator. In so doing, she spelled out the type of mission and the type of equipmnt she was flying.

I have no strong feeling either way as to the document’s authentisity. However, I think it is probably real. Do you have a different opinion?

Rollin C. Reineck – Kailua, HI

January 21, 2004

Rollin,

There are a number of things about the advertisement that lead me to conclude that it is a hoax.

• As you know, the original plan for the world flight was for Amelia to be accompanied by a navigator only on the initial transpacific legs, not for the entire flight as described in the advertisement.
• The description of the planned route of flight in the advertisement is incorrect. The South Atlantic crossing was to be from Dakar to Natal, not Fortaleza, and the originally anticipated route of return to the U.S. was via Mexico, not via Puerto Rico and Florida. The route described in the advertisement appears to be a somewhat inaccurate reversal of the actual second attempt route.
• The advertisement shows the aircraft’s fuel capacity as 1,202 gallons. According to the licensing and inspection records of the Bureau of Air Commerce, Earhart’s Electra never had that fuel capacity. When originally flight tested by Lockheed as X16020 the tanks totaled 1,198 gallons. By November 27, 1936 modifications had reduced this to 1,151 gallons and that figure remained unchanged until the airplane disappeared. The 1,202 figure seems to come from the 1967 biography of Paul Mantz (Hollywood Pilot) in which the author, Don Dwiggins, quoted the recollections of one Clarence Belinn, superintendent of engineering at National Airways in Boston, who claimed to have designed the fuel system for NR16020. Lockheed records make no mention of Mr. Belinn. Lockheed drawing number “42681 Fuel System Diagram, Amelia Earhart Electra” was made by R.L. Hayman on February 6, 1937.
• The clincher is the advertisement’s mention of the “Bendix loop antennae” [sic]. There was, of course, only one Bendix loop antenna installed on NR16020 (the use of the plural “antennae” is probably a typo) and it did not appear on the airplane until the first week of March 1937. By that time the navigator for the flight had already been announced. As you know, Earhart and Putnam kept the planned world flight a closely guarded secret until the press conference at the Barclay Hotel in New York on February 12, 1937. Harry Manning was present at that event and was introduced as Earhart’s selection as navigator for the Pacific crossing.

Could the advertisement possibly refer to the search for a second navigator that resulted in the recruitment of Fred Noonan? In my opinion, no. Besides the many errors in the description of the route and the airplane, posting an ad like this after Manning had already been named would be tantamount to saying “He’s no good. We need somebody else.” Noonan appeared on the scene only a few days before the flight’s departure and the plan was for him to go only as far as Howland Island.

Because there was no time when the information presented in the advertisement could be true, and because the navigator was selected before the planned flight was made public, it appears to me that the advertisement is a transparent hoax. I would welcome any additional information or observations you might have that would shed a different light on this document.

LTM,
Ric

January 23, 2004

Ric,

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. My analysis is that it is a legitimate document.

Rollin C. Reineck – Kailua, HI

January 23, 2004

Thank you. Let’s move on.

Before we get into the question of whether Irene Bolam was really Amelia Earhart, I’m curious about a few other assertions you make in your book that purport to solve long-standing mysteries in the Earhart case. Here are three.

1. Did Earhart have the correct coordinates for Howland Island?

The map of Howland Island prepared for Earhart by Clarence Williams sometime prior to the first World Flight attempt shows a latitude/longitude position for the island that is roughly 5 nautical miles in error. As you note, the island’s correct position was determined during an earlier visit by the Itasca and I agree with you that it is entirely reasonable to think that Earhart was advised of the corrected position. However, to my knowledge, no documentation has ever turned up to confirm that she was so advised and it remains one of the many annoying uncertainties in the Earhart case.

On page 97 of your book you claim to have put the matter to rest by observing that the 2, 556 statute mile distance from Lae to Howland used by Earhart is based upon the corrected coordinates. As much as I would like to have this question settled once and for all, I must disagree with your assertion on three counts:

1.	As I’m sure you realize, a point that is 2,556 miles from Lae can be anywhere on circle with Lae at its center and a radius of 2,556 miles.
2.	The shortest distance (great circle) from Lae to the correct position for Howland is not 2,556 statute miles; it is 2,558.6 statute miles. The great circle route from Lae to the erroneous position used by Clarence Williams is 2,553 statute miles.
3.	William’s map of Howland that gives the wrong coordinates also specifies the 2,556 mile distance to Lae.Clearly William’s calculated that distance based on the wrong coordinates. (See map of Howland at right.) So what does the 2,556 mile distance really represent? It’s the distance calculated by Williams using a series of straight-line segments (rhumblines) rather than a great circle. Flying a true great circle, shortest distance route would mean making constant tiny heading corrections. Not practical. Instead, Williams laid out a series of heading changes that would approximate a great circle. (See map of route at right.) The distance he came up with – 2,556 miles – is only three miles longer than the true great circle distance from Lae to the incorrect Howland coordinates he used. In short, it appears that both your logic and your information on this point are incorrect. Do you have other information that might change that impression? Click on the small maps to open larger versions in new windows.

2. Did Noonan have a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator license?

On page 95 of your book you state that Michael A. Lange has done research that reveals that Noonan had such a license, but you don’t say how he established that fact. It’s an important point because if Noonan did have that degree of competence in sending and receiving Morse code then he lied to Eric Chater, General Manager of Guinea Airways. “On enquiry Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan advised that they entirely depended on radio telephone reception as neither of them were able to read morse at any speed but could recognise an individual letter sent several times. This point was again mentioned by both of them later when two different sets at Lae were used for listening in for time signals.” (The Chater Report) As you may recall, recent discussions on the Earhart Forum have noted that attempts by researchers to obtain records from the Federal Communications Commission relating to any licenses Noonan may have held have not been successful. Please tell us. Who is Michael A. Lang and what proof did he find?

3. Did Earhart know about the high frequency direction finder on Howland?

As you correctly note in your book, Dept. of Interior representative Richard Black arranged to borrow a high frequency direction finder from the Navy. This receiver was set up on Howland Island and was intended to supplement the direction finding apparatus aboard the Itasca. No mention of this unit appears in any of the official message traffic that preceded the Lae/Howland flight and it has always been a puzzle whether Earhart was aware of it.

On page 90 of your book you state unequivocally that Richard Black advised George Putnam who then informed Earhart about the high frequency direction finder on Howland. How have you solved this aspect of the Earhart mystery?

There are many other similar issues we could discuss but let’s get these three out of the way and then move on to Irene Bolam.

LTM,
Ric

January 26, 2004

Ric.

I regret that due to some higher priority commitments, I have not had time to read or answer your latest questions. I’m estimating at least two weeks, possibly longer before I can respond.

Rollin C. Reineck – Kailua, HI

January 26, 2004

That’s okay. It’s up to you when and if you want to respond but so far I’ve raised four factual challenges to the credibility of your book and you have offered no defense except to say that you disagree with me. I understand that you are busy with other matters. So am I, but you’re the one who wrote the book. You’ve said that the book speaks for itself. We’ll let it do that and continue to examine the truth or falsehood of what it says. I’ll be happy to post your comments, rebuttals, or clarifications whenever you choose to offer them.

LTM,
Ric

February 2, 2004

Ric,

“While you're considering IF and HOW you wish to repond”

– You have such a condescending way with words.

Contrary to our expressed agreement, you are making statements in the form of questions reflecting pre-conceived answers, for the sole purpose of challenging me to debate, and demonstrating to your members how scholarly you are.

Earlier I said, that if you had a pre-determined or pre-judged answer to a question, don’t waste my time. It is quite obvious that you have deliberately disregarded my expressed wishes, consequently, you have invalidated our agreement.

Those who are helping Mr. Swindell have doctorates in forensic anthropology and are nationally recognized in the field of human identification. I will forward your message to Mr. Swindell so that he can advise them of the century-old study you note. I am sure that they will find it – and you – remarkable.

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI

February 2, 2004

I have done exactly what we both agreed to. I have raised questions about assertions that you make in your book because I believe them to be demonstrably incorrect. I have presented facts to support my challenges and I have given you the opportunity to show me that I’m wrong.

Like you, I have no desire to engage in a debate – that’s why I have limited my questions to matters of discernible fact.

• I pointed out numerous problems with the supposed navigator advertisement (page 68) that reveal it as a clumsy hoax. You offered nothing but your avowal that you believe it to be genuine.
• I challenged your claim to have solved the long-disputed question of whether Earhart had the correct coordinates for Howland Island by pointing out that 2,556 miles is not the distance from Lae to the correct Howland position, as you said it is on page 97 of your book. This is not a question requiring great scholarship. This is a simple question of how far it is from hither to yon. You have offered no response.
• I asked how Michael A. Lange, whoever he is, knows that Fred Noonan had a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator's license (page 95). You haven’t answered.
• I asked why you say (page 90) that Richard Black advised George Putnam about the high-frequency direction finder on Howland. You haven’t answered.

You appear to be particularly upset that I have now raised questions about the central premise of your book – that Irene Bolam was really Amelia Earhart. It’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and I applaud Mr. Swindell for seeking the help of degreed professionals. I think he needs it. I agree with you that anyone with a doctorate in forensic anthropology should know that the Bertillion system was discredited a hundred years ago, but I have yet to see any public statement by a forensic anthropologist that supports the notion that Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam were the same person.

I’ll continue to examine the statements you make in your book. My offer to post your unedited replies stands.

LTM,
Ric

February 15, 2004

I understand that these questions make you uncomfortable but I feel that they must be asked because it now appears that one of the cornerstones of the case you make for Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam being the same person is crumbling.

On page 180 of your book you describe the lawsuit filed by Irene Bolam against McGraw Hill, the publisher of Amelia Earhart Lives!, and the book’s authors Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas. You say that Bolam sued for invasion of privacy and libel but that “There has always been some question about what was libelous” about the book. You also say that the exact amount of damages being asked is also in question but that it was “in the neighborhood of two million dollars.”

From these comments it would seem apparent that you have not reviewed the court documents and yet you go on to describe specific aspects of the case.

• You say that Bolam, rather than the defendants, was responsible for delays in the case.
• You say that the defendants, in offering to settle the case for the requested amount, persuaded the judge to ask Mrs. Bolam to appear in person before the judge and provide her fingerprints.
• You say that, rather than accept this offer, Mrs. Bolam dropped the lawsuit.

Upon what sources are you relying for this description of events? It would seem that you are on good terms with Mr. Gervais and Mr. Klaas, whose “scholarly work” you quote at length with their permission. Do they not have copies of the court documents? Do they not remember why and for how much they were sued?

Are you aware that the case of “Irene Bolam v. McGraw Hill, Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas” is available to anyone? Simply go to the New York County Courthouse at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, Basement Room 141, and ask for Index No. 18983/1971. There is no charge and you don’t have to be a lawyer. It’s all free public information. You’ll be handed a packet of microfiche cards and directed to any of several microfiche reader/printers. You can copy as many pages as you wish for .25 each but there are many, many hundreds of pages to this case, so bring lots of quarters.

Hawaii is a long way from Manhattan but Nikumaroro, Tarawa, and England are all a long way from Delaware. If you want the answers you have to go where the answers are.

On February 11, 2004 I went to the New York County Courthouse and reviewed the file. Many, but not all, of the answers to the Bolam case are there.

• Bolam sued McGraw Hill, Gervais and Klaas for defamation on May 26, 1971
• The damages asked were $500,000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.
• The defense raised the question of what was libelous or defamatory about being accused of being a popular, some would even say heroic, American celebrity. The plaintiff responded with a reminder that the book accuses Bolam of being a liar, a traitor, and a bigamist.
• I saw no evidence of any delaying tactic by the plaintiff. She did ask the court to throw out as irrelevant 33 of some 600 questions posed as interrogatories for her to answer. She willingly gave a lengthy affidavit replying to the charges in the book.
• In 1975 the defendants moved for summary judgment. In other words, they filed a motion with the court enumerating all the reasons that Bolam’s lawsuit was without merit and asking the judge to dismiss the case. (This is a very standard move in civil cases.) On August 26, 1975 the court denied the motion and ruled that there were “triable issues” in the case.
• The defendants (McGraw, Gervais and Klaas) appealed the decision. On May 4, 1976 the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling.

At that point Bolam held all the cards. The defendants had two choices, they could go to trial (an extremely risky proposition having twice failed to get a summary judgment) or they could settle. Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included in the file I saw. It may be that one of the microfiche cards was missing. We’'ll continue our research and expect to have an answer before too long.

So far, there is nothing to support the story about the judge asking Bolam to produce fingerprints and, given the established facts of the case, it doesn’t make any sense. The burden of proof was on the defendants, not Bolam, and they had clearly failed twice to make their case. Bolam was in a position to say, “Pay up or we go to trial.” It will be interesting to see what did happen. Our suspicion is that McGraw Hill paid some amount in settlement in return for Bolam dropping the case, thereby letting Gervais and Klaas off the hook. We’ll see.

My question to you, Col. Reineck, is why you didn’t do the research before writing your book? It’s fine to repeat your friends’ stories but don’t present them as fact without checking them for accuracy first.

LTM, Ric

February 23, 2004

Col. Reineck, on page 192 of your book you write:

“Renowned forensic anthropologist Dr. Walter H. Birkby of Arizona and Dr. Todd W. Fenton of Michigan State University, fully recognized the Earhart-Bolam controversy through the quality of Swindell’s extensve [sic] physical and personal traits comparisons. With the enormous amount of research presented to them, they felt it was hard to disagree with the conclusion that there had once been two separate individuals, both identified as one person: ‘Irene Bolam.’ Significantly, one of these was previously known as Amelia Earhart.”

On February 20, 2004 I had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Birkby at the annual meeting of the American Association of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, Texas. I was rather surprised to learn that he is not familiar with your name nor with your book and was unaware that his name was being used to enhance the credibility of your claims.

When I asked him if he and Dr. Fenton were working with Todd Swindell on the Earhart/Bolam question he said, “We’re looking into it but we’re not sticking our necks out.”

I said, “Well, I’m afraid that your necks are being stuck out for you.”

He said (chuckling), “Oh that’s nice. The blade cuts cleaner that way.”

I explained, “In his book, Col. Reineck says that you and Dr. Fenton ‘find it hard to disgree’ with Swindell’s conclusions.”

He replied, “Yes, and we also find it hard to agree with his conclusions. You know, you can’t prove anything from photos. He showed us a bunch of overlays but the photo quality is so poor and they’ve been blown way up – you can almost make anybody look like anybody. Dr. Fenton has the photos up in Michigan now where there is decent equipment. We’ll see if anything can be learned.”

Once again, Col. Reineck, the facts appear to be very different from the information presented in your book. It’s one thing to present folklore as fact, but falsifying the endorsement of respected professionals is serious business. Unfortunately, you can’t unring a bell and you can’t unpublish a book. In a perfect world yours would be recalled just as Amelia Earhart Lives! was yanked from distribution; but Mrs. Bolam is long dead and that remedy seems remote. Your work will likely join the ranks of so many other Earhart conspiracy books: deceiving the unwary and perpetuating the myth. And you’ll have to live with it.

LTM, Ric