A few collective observations of many keen Tighar members, and I, bullet pointed:
From a general perspective of the report, an accusation like this must be heavily supported by visual evidence. Much is stated on their methods and conclusions, text wise, but do the images support their hypotheses? We all seem to agree that:
1) There is no accurate reference of scale available for comparisons.
a. What might be the size of an Electra tire might actually be the size of a car tire. Who knows?
b. Can the plaintiff provide an accurate representation of the scale of each video still? Dimensions? References within each still?
c. The image of the supposed "wire" might point to a ball park reference of scale, but it is still undetermined what the "wire" object actually is. Could be 3/8"
or 1" diameter. Again, who knows? It really matters for one to accept the landing gear hypothesis. I'm sure there are equally credible ocean
creatures/plants that fit the look and occur naturally in these environments. If not, still just a ropy looking thing in the image.
2) Asserting man-made vs. natural formations is subjective. Symmetry can occur at any distance to the human eye. Is it REALLY symmetrical on closer inspection? Problem is that this is the only video still we have. I cannot arrive at a comfortable conclusion without further angles and camera proximity to the object.
3) Even if there are man-made objects in the plaintiff's video stills, it does not prove they are from Earhart's Electra. Then again, how does one prove they are man-made, other than saying they probably are, because they do not fit within the context. Show me more ocean floor, mother nature will always surprise.
4) On the side of Tighar, did Tighar ever exclaim or even hint at detecting anything in the 2010 video before the 2012 video? I'm curious. The report seems to focus on the 2010 footage, and makes vague references to the 2012 video, without visual support, correct me if I'm wrong. How could Tighar "know," if they never said they knew?
5) As noted before, the 3d models do nothing more than provide an artificial rendering of the parts claimed to be in the video stills. All that's required is a "wireframe" 2d line drawing to overlay onto the coral. With the wireframe line drawing, there must be a discernible object in the video still for an overlay, but I'm finding no such object. The rounded "tire" coral growth looks promising, since the wireframe drawing does overlay quite well. However in another angle of the same "tire" object, it falls victim to illusion. That's how I view it, at least.
Greg Daspit makes a good point about the coral development over the claimed man-made objects. It could be that the coral layered itself into a Electra tire and fork-like object over the worm gear and headphones. The physical man-made objects in question are unfortunately obscured by somewhat unpredictable coral growth.
The plaintiff's experts' analyses only point to potential objects of interest or unusual sightings in an unpredictable environment. I think merit will be determined by the gullibility of the judge.