What do you think?
Rate this book
Rabbit Hole: The Vanishing of Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan
Based on the popular podcast Vanished , "Rabbit The Vanishing of Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan" is a collaborative effort featuring a guest list of almost 50 experts across all realms and theories in the Earhart case. Cohosts Chris Williamson & Jennifer Taylor take you through a comprehensive study of the life, legacy, lore and disappearance of Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan. Featuring twists and turns you'll never expect, throughout this incredible story, readers are asked to 'swear in' as Chris & Jen present four major theories in a trial by jury where the reader becomes part of the story. What evidence will convince you?
816 pages, Paperback
Published July 2, 2022
25 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 18, 2022
What follows is my review of Rabbit Hole, a new book on Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan that was released earlier in the month by Chris Williamson and Jen Taylor.
Admittedly, I'm a huge Ameliaphile, and know way more about her than is normal or probably healthy.
So of course I was going to grab this book.
I'm going to warn everyone right now, this is going to be a long review, because it's a long book and there's a lot in there.
First, the negatives. because I always get those out of the way first.
A couple are nitpicky and mainly due to my being an author and holding a Literature degree.
Others are because of my knowledge base in Aviation and being a huge Earhart nerd.
First, The use of italics is far too frequent in the early part of the book. If you're italicizing 5 words per sentence, it loses the emphasis. (It gets better as the book starts to roll).
Second, I wish Chris and Lisa had used a proof-reader.
For instance, and I'll only give a few from the beginning of the book so as not to belabor the point, Susan Butler released East to the Dawn in 1997, not 2009 (page 3), Albion on p 33 says there had been several attempts to cross the Atlantic, all unsuccessful. The inference is she is referring to the 1927 flights prior to Lindbergh. And yet. 1919. The Navy crossed the Atlantic by air in skips and jumps between May 8-May 29.
Alcock and Brown did it nonstop on June 14-15 of 1919. That's not all unsuccessful. That's SUCCESSFUL.
She later says "most pilots that made transatlantic journeys died". Again, incorrect. I mean, sure, EVERYONE dies eventually, but I don't think that's what she meant. Alcock and Brown. Hawker. Grieve. Amy and Jim Mollison. Coutinho and Cabral. Franco and his crew. Beieres and HIS crew. Beryl Markham. Chkalov. Lindbergh. Byrd. Balchen. De Pinedo. Corrigan. Fitzmaurice. Kohl. Hunefeld. McKintosh and so many others all survived their attempts by 1937-38. That's just off the top of my head.
Nungessor and Coli disappeared. This is nowhere near MOST.
On page 37 Amelia is discussed as the "first woman to fly solo across the North Atlantic continent". Pretty sure it's an ocean, not a continent.
Last example I'll use, but not the last in the book, page 39. "You might compare it to astronauts in the 1960s; everybody crashed and some survived, but most didn't." A proof-reader knowledgeable in aviation would have called this out for the BS it was. Out of 30 astronauts between Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, three were involved in crashes and died, and 3 more perished in the Apollo 1 pad fire. There is no way 6 out of 30 is MOST and 3 crashes were EVERYBODY.
It might seem like I'm picking on Albion, but her errors were just the earliest incredibly obvious ones in the book, and these are just some of the things a proofreader or editor could easily have fixed. Leaving obviously false statements like these in the book from "experts" honestly undermines the validity of what this book is trying to do.
As an addendum, and it's probably my age speaking, but I shudder whenever anyone quotes Wikipedia as a source. For hopefully obvious reasons. He uses it well but.....I personally would have quoted the books and sources Wikipedia got their info from, as I personally can't trust a reference source that anyone can edit.
Some of the people interviewed make for terrible experts. I alluded to this already, but I'll drop examples as I go.
Crash and Sink theory: Brian Dunning gets easily verifiable facts wrong. Amelia was not given a radio direction finding beacon to follow from Lae to Howland. (p 253) Itasca did not refuel any other aircraft on Howland. In fact, NO aircraft before or since AE ever landed there, so when he says "It refueled every plane that came in; Amelia Earhart was just one in a long line" (p 254) early in his testimony, he further loses credibility. He also says "We're pretty sure what happened is they missed the island because it was right in the setting sun in their eyes." (p 254) However...the sun RISES in the East in the mornings, no matter where on the planet you are. And have no doubts, she was trying to find Howland in the morning. More lost credibility. This kind of an expert only hurts any conversation they are a part of. But maybe that's exactly why Chris and Jen interviewed him, as it is obvious from early on they are proponents of the Capture theory. (As am I for the record)
On the Nikumaroro/TIGHAR theory: I've known about this theory since the 80s. I've read everything TIGHAR members and former members have ever written, I've watched all the press releases, and I've explored their website exhaustively. And here's what I KNOW. Ric Gillespie knows he's full of shit, and he just doesn't care. He knows there is zero evidence for his theory in any way, and he'll argue with his OWN FANS constantly about this on his website. But here's the kicker for me. He can't even entertain the possibility that someone else's theory could be right. The only people I know that are proponents of this theory are TIGHAR current or former members.
I'm not surprised Ric wouldn't be cross-examined. He doesn't like being questioned. At all. I know this from personal experience.
Since he couldn't be questioned properly, I don't think he should have been represented at all, so him being here only on the Chris as proponent side was unfair. To their credit, Chris and Jen mention this themselves, because they realize without Ric, there is no Nikumaroro theory.
(Update. The Nikumaroro Bones were found on Tarawa in 2018, brought to the University of South Florida and DNA tested. They are without a doubt NOT from Amelia.)
Buka: literally the weakest segment. Everyone interviewed mentioned they can't state there is even a plane there anymore. Everything is coral. One person saw the Crash and we don't even get told their name.
Japanese Prisoner:
Rob Ellos' knowledge of this subject was quite shaky. He was also the only person Chris introduced where they never stated his qualifications. All he said is, I'm gonna give you some names, you tell me why I asked those names. Let me clear that up. Ellos is a performance artist that does talks around the Twin Cities. When discussing Devine with Chris, Ellos states the white-shirted civilian was James Nichols. Devine actually stated he thought it was Forrestal. Huge difference. Jen eventually brings this up 45 pages later when she starts accusing Devine of lying. (Remember, she's supposed to try and disprove his side, although I found it odd Devine was the ONLY person whose character she attacked. I also couldn't find any information anywhere that people had found him to be lying, at least not on a TIGHAR level.) He also couldn't answer Jen's questions very well, although the information she was asking about is listed in the books of the authors he mentioned. He knew he was going to be asked, he should have had that info. Every time Jen tried to ask more detailed questions he just kept saying "that's not an area I'm knowledgeable in". For the record, he said that about aircraft knowledge (would a twin engine twin tailed silver aircraft be normal to these islands? For the record, no. Most Japanese twin engine aircraft had single tails and were green or grey), dates witnesses were interviewed (mentioned in the books), naval ship movements in that area, specifically the Koshu, (plenty of resources, and it has been proven to be on Jaluit in July of 37) if Amelia had a diary (she did), when WWII was (Jen asked when soldiers were on Saipan/Kwajalein. She asked if it was mid to late 40s and he agreed. WWII ended in 1945, so ill give him mid, but...the men he mentions were all very specific that this was 1944), how witnesses described Earhart and Noonan, nor does he know "much about Devine" after discussing him specifically with Chris and then Jen for a good 15 pages or so all told. So what DOES he know about?
For example, Jen easily trapped him with his lack of knowledge, bringing up that HE said Bilimon said Noonan's knee was injured but later sources said his head was bandaged. If Ellos knew his stuff he would know that Bilimon actually said he treated wounds on both Noonan's head and his knee. (Cut over one eye and deep infected cut over knee) This is mentioned in at least Knaggs, Brinks, and Campbell's books, off the top of my head.
Another "expert" that is hurting the credibility of this book.
This segment was also where Jen's cross-examinations were the weakest, honestly. I'd been impressed with them up until this point. Goerner was NOT the first to mention Saipan, that was Briand, which Chris even alluded to earlier. When talking about Noonan and Earhart coming ashore and burying the box, Ellos told her the man that dug it up (they called it a lighter, but it was a pin cover with part of a hinge for a larger piece) was named Oliver Knaggs. But he didn't explain AT ALL who Knaggs was, and Jen didn't ask....which she really should have, as Knaggs is important to the Capture theory.
With Hagadorn and the Bottle Message, Jen unfortunately trips up again. She mentions Knaggs found this report but says she can't find any earlier information on it, even though Goerner mentions it in his book. Jen then doubles down and says she searched online and couldn't find anything about it.....but Campbell's website discusses the bottle message in length.
I was saddened that Knaggs, Loomis, Brink, Campbell nor Myers were discussed in any length, and were hardly even mentioned. Sure, all but Brink and Campbell have passed on....but so had Bellarts. And I was more than a little confused by the lack of any interview with Mike Campbell, who is the biggest proponent for this theory.
This book could have benefited by having photos and documents shown that were mentioned. I mean, it was already nearly 800 pages, adding another 30-50 pages of supporting visuals and documentation wouldn't have hurt. Nor would a bibliography.
Ok, those are my negatives.
Positives are up next.
Chris' writing reminds me strongly of Brad Meltzer's hosting on Decoded. I believe that's intentional. I kept reading Chris' statements pre-trial in Brad's voice.
I love Jen's cross-examinations. Especially when someone says if the can get a good argument against something they'll consider it, then she gives them one, and they backpedal. Cerniglia is a great example.
I love how many of the main people still alive in the Earhart world that were interviewed. I wish a few others had been referenced more and relied on early on, like Doris Rich or Lovell.
I've read all the Earhart referencing books by the major players here that have written them, so there honestly weren't any real surprises in this book, but I did enjoy the way it was laid out.
It was definitely along the lines of Legerdemain by Bowman, and is a good entry book to the Earhart mystery. It's not a go-to book to learn about AE's life and accomplishments, nor does it claim to be. There are plenty of other books for that.
This book does do a great job of setting out the broad strokes of the 4 theories that they present. In no way does it go into deep detail of these theories, because that would be impossible, due to the amount of books that have been written on at least 3 of them. This book would have been 4000 pages if they had tried to do that and that was not there they're intact.
Personal highlights:
Crashed and Sank: Dettweiler comes across as a true expert in his field.
Castaway/Nikumaroro: King gives a good accounting while trying to maintain distance from his former colleagues.
Buka: the people consulted about this theory are passionate but realistic about it. They know what they don't have and that what they think they might have is disintegrating.
Japanese Prisoner: Admittedly, this is my favorite theory. So I know quite a lot about it. Les Kinney does a great job of summarizing the Prisoner Theory and talks about Kothera, whom a lot of people don't really know about.
The pacing was good for the most part and flowed easily.
In closing, someone asked me the other day which theory I think is MOST likely.
I believe the most likely is crashed and sank.
THAT being said, I've been a proponent of the Saipan theory since I taught myself how to read in the 70s. Mainly because the other options just seem.....too mundane. I would hope that Amelia and Fred's disappearance would have been for a reason, not just, basically, a mistake. But that's definitely the writer in me.
Overall, definitely a book that anyone interested in Amelia should pick up, but there was no new information added to the overall Earhart Library, if you know what I mean. Everything that was laid out in this book has been released and debated before.
Granted, Chris and Jen never claimed they would have anything relevatory, either. The opening of the book makes it abundantly clear that this is the Vanished podcast in written form, so if you've listened to that, you already know most of this.
Again, if you're interested in Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, I do recommend picking this book up.
Admittedly, I'm a huge Ameliaphile, and know way more about her than is normal or probably healthy.
So of course I was going to grab this book.
I'm going to warn everyone right now, this is going to be a long review, because it's a long book and there's a lot in there.
First, the negatives. because I always get those out of the way first.
A couple are nitpicky and mainly due to my being an author and holding a Literature degree.
Others are because of my knowledge base in Aviation and being a huge Earhart nerd.
First, The use of italics is far too frequent in the early part of the book. If you're italicizing 5 words per sentence, it loses the emphasis. (It gets better as the book starts to roll).
Second, I wish Chris and Lisa had used a proof-reader.
For instance, and I'll only give a few from the beginning of the book so as not to belabor the point, Susan Butler released East to the Dawn in 1997, not 2009 (page 3), Albion on p 33 says there had been several attempts to cross the Atlantic, all unsuccessful. The inference is she is referring to the 1927 flights prior to Lindbergh. And yet. 1919. The Navy crossed the Atlantic by air in skips and jumps between May 8-May 29.
Alcock and Brown did it nonstop on June 14-15 of 1919. That's not all unsuccessful. That's SUCCESSFUL.
She later says "most pilots that made transatlantic journeys died". Again, incorrect. I mean, sure, EVERYONE dies eventually, but I don't think that's what she meant. Alcock and Brown. Hawker. Grieve. Amy and Jim Mollison. Coutinho and Cabral. Franco and his crew. Beieres and HIS crew. Beryl Markham. Chkalov. Lindbergh. Byrd. Balchen. De Pinedo. Corrigan. Fitzmaurice. Kohl. Hunefeld. McKintosh and so many others all survived their attempts by 1937-38. That's just off the top of my head.
Nungessor and Coli disappeared. This is nowhere near MOST.
On page 37 Amelia is discussed as the "first woman to fly solo across the North Atlantic continent". Pretty sure it's an ocean, not a continent.
Last example I'll use, but not the last in the book, page 39. "You might compare it to astronauts in the 1960s; everybody crashed and some survived, but most didn't." A proof-reader knowledgeable in aviation would have called this out for the BS it was. Out of 30 astronauts between Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, three were involved in crashes and died, and 3 more perished in the Apollo 1 pad fire. There is no way 6 out of 30 is MOST and 3 crashes were EVERYBODY.
It might seem like I'm picking on Albion, but her errors were just the earliest incredibly obvious ones in the book, and these are just some of the things a proofreader or editor could easily have fixed. Leaving obviously false statements like these in the book from "experts" honestly undermines the validity of what this book is trying to do.
As an addendum, and it's probably my age speaking, but I shudder whenever anyone quotes Wikipedia as a source. For hopefully obvious reasons. He uses it well but.....I personally would have quoted the books and sources Wikipedia got their info from, as I personally can't trust a reference source that anyone can edit.
Some of the people interviewed make for terrible experts. I alluded to this already, but I'll drop examples as I go.
Crash and Sink theory: Brian Dunning gets easily verifiable facts wrong. Amelia was not given a radio direction finding beacon to follow from Lae to Howland. (p 253) Itasca did not refuel any other aircraft on Howland. In fact, NO aircraft before or since AE ever landed there, so when he says "It refueled every plane that came in; Amelia Earhart was just one in a long line" (p 254) early in his testimony, he further loses credibility. He also says "We're pretty sure what happened is they missed the island because it was right in the setting sun in their eyes." (p 254) However...the sun RISES in the East in the mornings, no matter where on the planet you are. And have no doubts, she was trying to find Howland in the morning. More lost credibility. This kind of an expert only hurts any conversation they are a part of. But maybe that's exactly why Chris and Jen interviewed him, as it is obvious from early on they are proponents of the Capture theory. (As am I for the record)
On the Nikumaroro/TIGHAR theory: I've known about this theory since the 80s. I've read everything TIGHAR members and former members have ever written, I've watched all the press releases, and I've explored their website exhaustively. And here's what I KNOW. Ric Gillespie knows he's full of shit, and he just doesn't care. He knows there is zero evidence for his theory in any way, and he'll argue with his OWN FANS constantly about this on his website. But here's the kicker for me. He can't even entertain the possibility that someone else's theory could be right. The only people I know that are proponents of this theory are TIGHAR current or former members.
I'm not surprised Ric wouldn't be cross-examined. He doesn't like being questioned. At all. I know this from personal experience.
Since he couldn't be questioned properly, I don't think he should have been represented at all, so him being here only on the Chris as proponent side was unfair. To their credit, Chris and Jen mention this themselves, because they realize without Ric, there is no Nikumaroro theory.
(Update. The Nikumaroro Bones were found on Tarawa in 2018, brought to the University of South Florida and DNA tested. They are without a doubt NOT from Amelia.)
Buka: literally the weakest segment. Everyone interviewed mentioned they can't state there is even a plane there anymore. Everything is coral. One person saw the Crash and we don't even get told their name.
Japanese Prisoner:
Rob Ellos' knowledge of this subject was quite shaky. He was also the only person Chris introduced where they never stated his qualifications. All he said is, I'm gonna give you some names, you tell me why I asked those names. Let me clear that up. Ellos is a performance artist that does talks around the Twin Cities. When discussing Devine with Chris, Ellos states the white-shirted civilian was James Nichols. Devine actually stated he thought it was Forrestal. Huge difference. Jen eventually brings this up 45 pages later when she starts accusing Devine of lying. (Remember, she's supposed to try and disprove his side, although I found it odd Devine was the ONLY person whose character she attacked. I also couldn't find any information anywhere that people had found him to be lying, at least not on a TIGHAR level.) He also couldn't answer Jen's questions very well, although the information she was asking about is listed in the books of the authors he mentioned. He knew he was going to be asked, he should have had that info. Every time Jen tried to ask more detailed questions he just kept saying "that's not an area I'm knowledgeable in". For the record, he said that about aircraft knowledge (would a twin engine twin tailed silver aircraft be normal to these islands? For the record, no. Most Japanese twin engine aircraft had single tails and were green or grey), dates witnesses were interviewed (mentioned in the books), naval ship movements in that area, specifically the Koshu, (plenty of resources, and it has been proven to be on Jaluit in July of 37) if Amelia had a diary (she did), when WWII was (Jen asked when soldiers were on Saipan/Kwajalein. She asked if it was mid to late 40s and he agreed. WWII ended in 1945, so ill give him mid, but...the men he mentions were all very specific that this was 1944), how witnesses described Earhart and Noonan, nor does he know "much about Devine" after discussing him specifically with Chris and then Jen for a good 15 pages or so all told. So what DOES he know about?
For example, Jen easily trapped him with his lack of knowledge, bringing up that HE said Bilimon said Noonan's knee was injured but later sources said his head was bandaged. If Ellos knew his stuff he would know that Bilimon actually said he treated wounds on both Noonan's head and his knee. (Cut over one eye and deep infected cut over knee) This is mentioned in at least Knaggs, Brinks, and Campbell's books, off the top of my head.
Another "expert" that is hurting the credibility of this book.
This segment was also where Jen's cross-examinations were the weakest, honestly. I'd been impressed with them up until this point. Goerner was NOT the first to mention Saipan, that was Briand, which Chris even alluded to earlier. When talking about Noonan and Earhart coming ashore and burying the box, Ellos told her the man that dug it up (they called it a lighter, but it was a pin cover with part of a hinge for a larger piece) was named Oliver Knaggs. But he didn't explain AT ALL who Knaggs was, and Jen didn't ask....which she really should have, as Knaggs is important to the Capture theory.
With Hagadorn and the Bottle Message, Jen unfortunately trips up again. She mentions Knaggs found this report but says she can't find any earlier information on it, even though Goerner mentions it in his book. Jen then doubles down and says she searched online and couldn't find anything about it.....but Campbell's website discusses the bottle message in length.
I was saddened that Knaggs, Loomis, Brink, Campbell nor Myers were discussed in any length, and were hardly even mentioned. Sure, all but Brink and Campbell have passed on....but so had Bellarts. And I was more than a little confused by the lack of any interview with Mike Campbell, who is the biggest proponent for this theory.
This book could have benefited by having photos and documents shown that were mentioned. I mean, it was already nearly 800 pages, adding another 30-50 pages of supporting visuals and documentation wouldn't have hurt. Nor would a bibliography.
Ok, those are my negatives.
Positives are up next.
Chris' writing reminds me strongly of Brad Meltzer's hosting on Decoded. I believe that's intentional. I kept reading Chris' statements pre-trial in Brad's voice.
I love Jen's cross-examinations. Especially when someone says if the can get a good argument against something they'll consider it, then she gives them one, and they backpedal. Cerniglia is a great example.
I love how many of the main people still alive in the Earhart world that were interviewed. I wish a few others had been referenced more and relied on early on, like Doris Rich or Lovell.
I've read all the Earhart referencing books by the major players here that have written them, so there honestly weren't any real surprises in this book, but I did enjoy the way it was laid out.
It was definitely along the lines of Legerdemain by Bowman, and is a good entry book to the Earhart mystery. It's not a go-to book to learn about AE's life and accomplishments, nor does it claim to be. There are plenty of other books for that.
This book does do a great job of setting out the broad strokes of the 4 theories that they present. In no way does it go into deep detail of these theories, because that would be impossible, due to the amount of books that have been written on at least 3 of them. This book would have been 4000 pages if they had tried to do that and that was not there they're intact.
Personal highlights:
Crashed and Sank: Dettweiler comes across as a true expert in his field.
Castaway/Nikumaroro: King gives a good accounting while trying to maintain distance from his former colleagues.
Buka: the people consulted about this theory are passionate but realistic about it. They know what they don't have and that what they think they might have is disintegrating.
Japanese Prisoner: Admittedly, this is my favorite theory. So I know quite a lot about it. Les Kinney does a great job of summarizing the Prisoner Theory and talks about Kothera, whom a lot of people don't really know about.
The pacing was good for the most part and flowed easily.
In closing, someone asked me the other day which theory I think is MOST likely.
I believe the most likely is crashed and sank.
THAT being said, I've been a proponent of the Saipan theory since I taught myself how to read in the 70s. Mainly because the other options just seem.....too mundane. I would hope that Amelia and Fred's disappearance would have been for a reason, not just, basically, a mistake. But that's definitely the writer in me.
Overall, definitely a book that anyone interested in Amelia should pick up, but there was no new information added to the overall Earhart Library, if you know what I mean. Everything that was laid out in this book has been released and debated before.
Granted, Chris and Jen never claimed they would have anything relevatory, either. The opening of the book makes it abundantly clear that this is the Vanished podcast in written form, so if you've listened to that, you already know most of this.
Again, if you're interested in Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, I do recommend picking this book up.
September 10, 2023
Chris is a great storyteller and this endeavor is no different than any of his others. It's stellar. He uses investigative techniques to present history to his readers, along with experts on the subject who give their insights on the subject, and in turn, Christ and his partner Jen question everything in a did they or didn't they sort of way. It presents history with a mystery in a compelling way that readers will want to stick around for more way after the book is done. Well done!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews