Talk:Irene Craigmile Bolam

I wonder
It seems like a simple thing to me: Why didn't she just allow her finger prints to be taken in front of the judge? If she were not Earhart, she would have gotten huge money. Hmmmmm. ProfessorPaul 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people have a thing about privacy. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as it is possible to establish from the available documents and records (NOT rumors, hearsays and speculations), apparently this story about Bolam's "mysterious fingerprinting problem" is just one of the many "canonized myths" surrounding the Bolam story. There were many such a cases in the history of this theory, when some facts were presented "in mysterious way", for to look intriguing... while actually there was no any "mystery" or "specially suspicious/enigmatic circustances"

As far as it is known, nobody ever presented - neither to general public nor to the "community" of the Earhart researchers and historians - any factual evidence/document/record  that would somehow confirm that there was really such a sum promised to Bolam for her fingerprints.

In process of continuing informational exchange and discussions between the Earhart researchers, the author and researcher Joe Klaas informed yet several years ago that he was just told of the "fingerprint incident" by one of his attorneys, and he could not even be sure when and where exactly it happened (a hearing?  a deposition?) Neither Joe Klaas nor Joe Gervais (the actual "father" of the "Bolam as Earhart theory")were present.

There is a logical reason to be somewhat skeptical about the seriousness of all the story, and particularly the seriousness of intentions of the mentioned attorneys. The reason is following. If those attorneys were serious about taking Irene Bolam's fingerprints, they could have filed a motion for a court order requiring her to be fingerprinted. Since the fingerprints were a principal thing to their case that Bolam was actually Earhart, it seems certain that a court would have granted the motion (of course assuming that Earhart's fingerprints were available for comparison). And, that motion should be in the case file.

If the mentioned attorneys didn't file such a motion, it means that the incident (if it ever occurred) was pure grandstanding, and the attorneys were simply not serious about getting Bolam's fingerprints.

Thus, without any documented proofs ever presented, all the story about "big money proposed to Bolam and rejected by her" looks not much convincing but rather one of the "canonized legends", many of which surrounds quite a bizarre "tree" of the Earhart research.

In the summer of 2005, the group of Earhart historians/researchers prepared a special "Report" about the "Bolam as Earhart theory", analyzing its credibility in many aspects, and releasing some documents and evidence related to the story, some of which was never published before. The document was publicly released during the Seminar of Earhart historians, researchers and authors in Atchison, Kansas, that accompanied the annual Amelia Earhart Birthday Festival in July 24, 2005.

The conclusions of the authors about the theory was skeptical. The theory makes a strong contradictions both with well established documented historic facts about both Earhart and Bolam, and also with a formal logic. After a huge collective research work of several years, no bit of any real fact, document, or credible evidence was ever found that would somehow confirm the credibility of the theory and numerous "canonized myths", legends and embellished statememnts that "grew up around the theory" during last decades.

Simultaneously, many facts and historic records about Bolam and her life were established, that definitely confirms that she was not any kind of "mystery woman" at all; her life was not enigmatic, and well documented through the years, since her childhood. Right now i posted some of this information to the "Main page" of this article; hope, the owner/editor of this article may find a possibility to consider this info and include it, in some form, to the article, just for to make it more complete.

I am sincerely apologizing "in advance" before this person (the Owner/Editor) because of the "format" of my comment, that may be not very convenient... unfortunately, i must admit, i am not very good about the "Web-design" and its instruments.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD., Earhart researcher and historian


 * Please sign your posts with four tildes and don't indent, it invokes other wiki-specific formatting code, with results you surely did not intend, thanks. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The suit against Gervais and Klass was dismissed or withdrawn after "Bolam" refused to provide fingerprints, which would have decided once and for all whether she was Amelia Earhart or not. The book by Gervais and Klass has been anything but "widely discredited" and that remark should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.9.50 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As it is noted above, there is no supporting evidence at all for the claim that "the suit against Gervais and Klass was dismissed or withdrawn after "Bolam" refused to provide fingerprints"... see above for details. The theory proposed by Gervais and Klass, presented in their book, is widely discredited: both inside the "Earhart research community" (including historians, biographers, etc.), and by several independent research groups that included certified professional forensic experts. Their pretty certain and coherent conclusion was: there is no chance for Bolam to became "ex-Earhart"; they were different persons, "case closed". The massive data about Bolam's own life, collected and presented publicly by many researchers in different times (particularly yet in 1982), also doesn't leave any room for possibility for Bolam to be "ex-Earhart". Such is historical reality - that is properly presented in the article, and there is no reason at all to "change" it just because of somebody still want to "defend" some  debunked and discredited theory. Alex V Mandel (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:UNDUE has sway here. I'm aware of not even one halfway reliable source which lends any acknowledgement that Gervais and Klass' published notions about Bolam were meaningful in any way. McGraw-Hill quickly withdrew the book when they came to understand it could (and likely would) be taken as straightforward libel. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

they would then need earharts fingerprints which i dont think were around in 1937 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.193.201 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AE's fingerprints certainly were around by 1937; she was fingerprinted by FBI as a part of FBI's contemporary public campaign for fingerprinting people in 1930s; it was considered then by many as an effective measure against crime and gangsters and AE supported the idea, so she agreed to be fingerprinted and all the event was filmed. Please see: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675031192_Amelia-Earhart_fingerprint_women-in-queue_uniformed-police-officer_fingerprints-on-strip       Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Material added to bottom of article moved here
The anon added the following text to the article, which I have moved here. While I do agree with the pith of it, the Bolam tale has been thoroughly debunked many times. If someone wants to verify, condense and include some of this stuff into the article, cool. I'm too bored. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Debunked"? That's a matter of opinion, and please add some detail to back up that statement. There has never, ever, at any time, been any proof that the woman Joe Gervais met and photographed in 1965 was NOT Amelia Earhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.9.50 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The following information about Irene Craigmille Bolam was summarized in the special "Report" about the "Bolam as Earhart theory", analyzing its credibility in many aspects, and releasing some documents and evidence related to the story.

The document was publicly released to the "Earhart researcher's community" and general public during the Seminar of Earhart historians, researchers and authors in Atchison, Kansas, that accompanied the annual Amelia Earhart Birthday Festival in July 24, 2005. It confirms that Irene Bolam was not any kind of "mystery woman"; actually, her life was not enigmatic, and well documented through the years since her childhood.

The following text is quoted from: "AMELIA EARHART’S SURVIVAL AND REPATRIATION: MYTH OR REALITY? - A Preliminary Report by Alex Mandel, Ph.D., in collaboration with Ronald Bright, Patrick Gaston, Bill Prymak, Edited by Mike Campbell, 2005" :

"...According to the short biography published by The News Tribune in October 1982, Irene Bolam was born Irene Madeline O’Crowley on Oct. 1, 1904 in Newark, New Jersey, on the first floor of 118 S. 11th St. This latter data was mentioned in a note her father sent to her on her 39th birthday, in 1943.

As a child, Irene attended St. Dominic’s Academy in Caldwell, N.J., for seventh grade in 1916 but was removed when her mother died. Later she graduated from Barringer High School, Newark. In 1923, Irene embarked on her first European cruise, during which she wrote a diary that was still intact in the 1980s.

In 1927 Irene married James C. Craigmile, chief engineer of the Wanaque Dam in Newark, and though the marriage was reportedly an idyllic one, it was short-lived. James Craigmile died suddenly in September 1931, due to gangrene developed as a result of a fatally underestimated appendicitis condition.

As were many educated young ladies of the period, Irene was fascinated by aviation. She took up flying in 1932 at Floyd Bennett Field, then Roosevelt Field, Long Island, and received a pilot’s license on May 27, 1933. Irene then married her flight instructor, Alvin Victor Heller. According to available evidence, in June 1933 she stopped flying – perhaps because she was pregnant, and in March 1934 she gave birth to a son, Clarence Heller, in Newark.

The marriage appeared to be unhappy, however, as Irene’s new husband was reportedly a “ladies man,” and the Hellers often suffered emotional and financial turmoil. Helen Salzano, a nurse who ministered to Irene during her final years, quoted Bolam as saying about her marriage to Heller: “My family was right. I made a mistake.” Around 1940, she annulled her marriage to Alvin Heller and took back her family name of Craigmile.

She worked as a section manager and packing supervisor at Macy’s, then as a store detective for Lord & Taylor, a job she quit because she disliked “the seamy side of life.” Later she worked for an unnamed personal finance company on Long Island, and in 1945 she moved to the People’s National Bank of Lynbrook, Long Island, where she started a consumer credit department.

In 1946 she joined the National Bank of Great Neck, later renamed the Central Bank of Great Neck. Finally, in 1955, Irene joined the Scwerin Stone Brokerage firm as a customer representative, where she worked until her marriage to Guy Bolam in 1958. In 1967 the Bolams moved to Jamesburg, N.J. Guy died in 1970, and Irene died of cancer on July 7, 1982.

Modern Earhart researchers investigated many details and found many archieval official records regarding Irene Bolam, including numerous photographs in different periods, and documents including driver’s and pilot’s licenses. Long Island telephone books in 1942 and 1943 list her as living at Wantagh, at another address in the same community from 1944 to 1950, and in Lynbrook and later Great Neck until she married Guy Bolam.

This material can justifiably prompt some definite conclusions: Irene Bolam was an honest, upright individual. She was not a mysterious woman, and she was not Amelia Earhart. She was a normal, real person, whose life contained no real “connections” to Amelia Earhart."

END OF QUOTATION.

Thus, the theory about "Bolam as Earhart" apparently must be considered just as one more "historic legend" - that may seem exciting, because of the exciting "aroma of the mystery" created around it for decades... but not having any factual proofs, and conclusively debunked as factually wrong by a collective efforts and investigation of many modern Earhart historians and researchers.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD., Earhart researcher and historian

Condense and integrate
The info's helpful enough but needs to be condensed and integrated into a few pithy paragraphs about this person, whose only encyclopedic notability involves her victimization in a botched attempt to make money from gullible, casual mass market readers who might believe some loopy pop-culture fantasy she was Amelia Earhart. Gwen Gale 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwen, thanks for your kind reply; my own opinion about this theory coincides with yours for 100% :) . If about "condensing and integrating" the info on the Page, i will appreciate if you will try to do it "in your way"; i just really think that you, with your apparent experience of writing for this Encyclopedia, can do it better. I provided the info; and, if you will need any additional stuff, can provide more - please just contact me anytime if you will need anything... yesterday i wrote what else i have... Kind Regards! - very sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alex! When I have time, I will do this. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does she have children? That would prove a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.166.75 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Yes she did, and her son was interviewed. He confirms that his mother was not Amelia Earhart. Please see the report # 2 in the "External links" section of the article for details, the direct link is: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart's_Survival_and_Repatriation:_Myth_or_Reality%3F   Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Bolam as a case of Pseudohistory
Wikipedia has an excellent category on Pseudohistory that seems appropriate to me for this article; Joe Klaas had claimed that Bolam was Amelia Earhart--this was not the case--so it should be considered "Pseudohistory" (a false or unproven claim about a historical person or event). Perhaps we should create a new Wiki-Category: "Victims of Pseudohistory." Bolam seems (in my POV) to be a victim of a pseudohistory researcher. Comments on this are welcome. ProfessorPaul 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems ok by me. Don't know about a "victims of pseudohistory" cat, the term victim is widely abused, is loaded and PoV (although Ms Bolam was most definitely a victim here and the publisher paid her compensation for it). Gwen Gale 05:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I either misunderstood what this editor was on about or simply didn't have my brain plugged in at the time. Meanwhile StormRider helpfully removed the category tag. Gwen Gale 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon further reflection, the term Pseudohistory typically does not refer to a person, but to a work (like a book or an article) that is related to history, but simply false. I can now see that the Category "Pseudohistory" is not appropriate for her.  I did insert a parenthetical mention of his book as pseudohistory.  ProfessorPaul 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Same thing happened to me at first, so to speak. Bolam is not pseudohistory, she was the subject of pseudohistory. Categorizing an article on Joe Klaas in pseudohistory would be ok. Gwen Gale 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The only recommendation is that that any claim for being false history be supported by a reputable expert's statement of it being false.  Categories are too easily created and they often create more problems than clarity.  I would certainly not support the above category of Victims of Pseudohistory.  Cheers.  --Storm Rider (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Victims of Ph... yep, think of the abuse and muddle such a list would gather. Erm, come to think of it I'm not even sure I like the term pseudohistory with that definition. Seems to me we already have the words "fiction," "scam," and "fantasy." Gwen Gale 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me state that I very much enjoy Wikipedia for this reason: we can all have a very calm and rational discussion about issues we find important.  I also wanted to state that I have no plans at all to create a new Wiki Category "Victims of Pseudohistory."  Finally--I appreciate the two of you very much (Gwen and Storm Rider) for your contributions on this talk page and to the article.  "Cheers!"  ProfessorPaul 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes/corrections
After reading the AP article (from "Atchison Globe online"), i found that it includes some factually incorrect statements, that provides potential misinforming effects - "crediting" the fantastic anti-factual theory with undue weight. The statement about Mr. Tod Swindell's photographic overlays with "pilot’s face and hands, matching perfectly with those of Bolam" is of unclear origin. In a very best case it quotes and represents the personal opinion of Mr. Swindell himself and a few overenthusiastic believers in his theory. The differences between Earhart and Bolam - both in bodial and facial aspects - are numerous and quite obvious, some of them striking; and it was always noted by numerous observers and researchers, both during the presentations of the theory and in all other cases when and where some discussion about this topic ever happened. The important and principal fact is that there was no any positive forensic confirmation for the theory ever provided to the public and scientific coomunity for any professional check and proper verification. Moreover, two "forensic pathologists" mentioned in the article - Dr. Walter Birkby (Arizona) and Dr. Todd Fenton (Michigan) - actually issued a negative verdict about the credibility of the theory, refusing to support it; and in May 2005 Mr.Swindell's collaborator Colonel Rollin Reineck - the author of the book supporting this theory published in 2002 - informed about this the "community" of Earhart researchers (although not without understandable regrets). Then, as the article mentions, in 2006 Criminal forensic expert Kevin Richland was hired by National Geographic to study photographs of Earhart and Bolam and cited many measurable facial differences between them. It seems for me that all the abovementioned leaves the referred article without the degree of seriousness, factual accuracy and credibility required for the "source" referred in encyclopedic article. Not intended to insist on anything.. but, because of presented reasons, for me it would seem more reasonable to remove this link... Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 13:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex, I agree with you on all points but one, the AP article was not being used as source material, but merely to provide the citation for a quote. You will note that it is listed as a footnote and only for the quote, and is not given as a reference (Wikipedia does not have a real section for notes and therefore citations are squeezed into the references section). However, your point is well taken and I will either provide a "note" to the note or if you can find a suitable quote, eliminate or replace the quote. IMHO Bzuk 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, thank you for your kind reply and "update" you made! ...IMHO, this article just includes too many incorrect/inaccurate statements so the possible confusion it may cause "overweights" any potential usefullness of it being cited in Encyclopedia for any purpose. So i still think it would be OK to remove it at all... but after all your added comment "proposes an alternate solution" of the problem so to speak... so i will not insist on my opinion. Kind Regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alex, I used the wording that you suggested to make a strong statement about the many inaccuracies in a definitely "sensationalist" media report. (As an aside, I am a member of the so-called fourth estate and I know full well what I have done to stories to "spice" them up and what others have done when interviewing me.) I hope that the lengthy explanation does not take away from the one genuine quote that to me described the interesting life that Irene Bolam had lived especially in the 1940s and that was a matter of note in the family. Kind regards back at 'ya. Bzuk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Hello Srleffler, many thanks for your attention re: the Irene Bolam article links. The first one (related to TIGHAR) was really obsolate and broken; so i found a new one (to the same material)and restored it. About the second link, it was not actually "broken"; possibly (I just guess), you could be confused by the text "Sorry, your time to enter the code has expired. Please try again" - that appears first if to click on the link. This text however doesn't mean that the link is broken; if you would go down to the bottom of the page, you would see that the actual download link is still there, and works normally (i just checked from my computer); so, i restored it too. Anyway, thank you again for your attention to these questions. Sincerely - Alex V Mandel (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hunch2011 asks: "Why no mention of where Irene Bolam received the DFC or maple leaves? She is shown in photo wearing both at the same time." - she didn't have the DFC. That photo was just somewhat misinterpreted by some overenthusiastic believers of the "Irene Bolam as Amelia Earhart" theory. Please see the link #2 in the External Links section of the article, this aspect is reviewed there in details in the Chapter 6. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Hi to all editors of this article. I just wanted to discuss some recent changes I can see now. Until 28 October 2016, there was a phrase in the article: "Bolam's personal life history has since been thoroughly documented, eliminating any possibility she was Earhart". This phrase stayed in the article for years and correctly described the situation, as this thesis was and is supported by numerous facts presented both in the article and in the Links section after it. In 28 October 2016, hovewer, it was changed by somebody ("Gibsononian") to a form: "Bolam's personal life history was thoroughly documented, although inconsistent photo evidence of her person did not eliminate the possibility that she was formerly known as Amelia Earhart". This was a baseless statement not supported by any facts and verifiable sources; apparently it was added by some conspiracy lovers still enamoured with the "Bolam-as-Earhart" theory. So, in 15 February 2017 this phrase was completely removed from the article by the editor Paige Matheson, together with another weird statement with no source at all (and I support these actions of this editor). Now the question is, why wouldn't we just restore the original phrase in the article, as it initially was: "Bolam's personal life history has since been thoroughly documented, eliminating any possibility she was Earhart"? I think it would be just factually correct, logical and rational. Also, in the article there was a phrase: "In 2006, criminal forensic expert Kevin Richlin was hired by National Geographic to study photographs of Earhart and Bolam and cited many measurable facial differences between them, concluding that the two people were not the same". Now I see that in the same date 28 October 2016 the same person ("Gibsononian") edited it into a form: "In 2006, criminal forensic expert Kevin Richlin was hired by National Geographic to study photographs of Earhart and Bolam and cited some differences he noticed, but determined more photo evidence was needed for him to conclusively determine whether the two people were or were not one and the same" - without providing any source that would justify such change. Meanwhile I remember that 2006 investigation and documentary very well, and I am well aware what Kevin Richlin really said: he clearly expressed his professional opinion that these two individuals (Earhart and Bolam) were not the same. I think this was another attempt to drag into the article the conspiracy theoretizing, that is having no room in Wikipedia. I propose to return the original correct phrase into the article, and I am doing it. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was attacked again by the same editor "Gibsononian", who already tried previously to transform it into platform for propaganda of radical cospiracy theories about Irene Bolam (like there was a governmental cospiracy with several different Irene Bolams secretly involved, etc.). No confirmations of these radical conspiracy fantasies, reviewed and confirmed by scientists and historians, were ever presented to the world. Irene Bolam was a real person with well documented history, known by many through many decades of her life. These conspiracy theories did never have and still are not having any status in the serious scholar historical community, and reflect only the personal beliefs and theories of Mr. Tod Swindell and a little circle of conspiracy theorists who shares his beliefs. They are trying to promote them tirelessly for decades already, but with no proofs ever presented (although these proofs were promised many times together with the claims that they would change a history etc.). Wikipedia must not be used for propaganda of anybody's private conspiracy theories and beliefs, it must present only the reliable, confirmed, verified and proven historical facts. And Wikipedia article must not misinform the readers unfairly creating in them a false illusions of existance of some "controversy" about the described issue only because of some narrow group of conspiracy lovers would like to create such an illusion. Such misuse of Wikipedia is an abuse and vandalism and must be punished. Alex V Mandel (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was attacked again by the same editor "Gibsononian", who repeatedly replaces factual information on this page with wild conspiracy fantasies debunked and discredited long ago. This is a serious abuse of Wikipedia, in my opinion this person must be blocked and denied further access to it. Alex V Mandel (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Links section
Another editor removed the link to an article "Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?" claiming that it violates the WP:EL rules. IMHO this claim needs some clarification. The mentioned article is right on topic and it is legally present in the Wikipedia system for years already as a free informational release legally published in at least two independent sources (books) and it's status is properly announced and confirmed. Until there will be some consensus between several editors about this situation I restored the link for a while. Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

New book
The new addition to the text of the article claims that "In January 2016, Amelia Earhart: Beyond the Grave by W. C. Jameson was published, setting forth new evidence to show that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." -with the link to the Fox News article about the book. But in this Fox article there are no new evidence, and in fact even no claims about any "new evidence to show that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." The Fox article just introduces the main idea of the theory for unprepared reader in a pretty general way. The Fox article also claim that "Jameson claims to have found evidence showing Earhart's plane was equipped with cameras to record Japanese military installations in the Pacific Ocean when it lost contact in the Marshall Islands." But this is a different claim, not equal to the statement that "new evidence [was found] that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." And, just as the theory itself, this is not a new claim, too. It was proposed already by several Earhart researchers in different times (although was never confirmed) - including also the ones who doesn't believe the Irene Bolam theory. This is why I found it reasonable to re-phrase slightly this recent addition in the Wikipedia article. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If National Geographic Society disproved this theory in 2006 then why does the website show this as a theory without a smoking gun?
The website is: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120724-amelia-earhart-google-doodle-fred-noonan-115th-nation-science/

Under theory 3 they cite Irene Bolam.2600:8805:A181:DD0:B435:BC99:212B:A7F9 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In our times such articles, alas, are usually written as just a "general topic reviews for general public" - by journalists not having a specially deep knowledge about the particular topic, and without much attention to details and facts. It can be considered as a sign of a general deterioration of the quality of modern journalism, which is overwhelmingly infected by politically correct but intellectually wrong and logically senseless ideas like "all theories must be treated as equals" etc. Still, in the article the Irene Bolam theory is placed into the "Conspiracy" section - that is pretty much correct. Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)