In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....
Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed). Didn't you take Archaeology 101?
Andrew, Andrew...
You seem to be confusing me, a mere layman before my participation, with TIGHAR the self-proclaimed experts in all matters relative to the loss of, and search for, Amelia Earhart. I certainly have learned many things from my experiences, but to suggest that I could have in any manner been able to contribute to the planning of either expedition is pure poppy-cock (or "banjo", as Ric now enjoys saying).
Further to his post above, I kindly agree with Tim's admission there of being a mere layman. Below is his own explanation from an earlier time of how he managed to scale things -
Tim, do a search on the word 'scale' and you should find the appropriate threads.
Chris, thanks for the suggestion. Earlier in the year folks were seeing some of the same things. The wheel, for instance. What has provided scale for me is the juxtaposition of the wheel and engine suggested by John Balderston (see reply #1567 this thread, third attachment).
John also points out the numeral "2" at time 13:43:20 frame 14 in the upper right hand corner of the picture. The known size of the number on the plane's wing is certainly scale that I can believe in (see reply #1598 this thread, third attachment).
Of course, scale is going to depend on distance from camera to object observed. It would be helpful if somehow the ROV could drop foot-long bio-degradable "straws" from place to place, just to give us a shot at scale!
To depend on the 'wheel' and 'engine' and 'juxtaposition' as a reliable method of scaling size or distance would be dependent on objectively showing that one reliably was looking at one such object for certain, i.e. indeed, factually a 'wheel', or an 'engine'. Proof that we are indeed looking at same, beyond significant doubt (in fact, in the words of one, those odds are "vanishingly small") appears to remain elusive. Hence, we still lack a reliable form of scale, if considered according to Tim's idea.
Could such an object be provably identified, then his idea would be grand, I would agree; were that the case, however, we'd hardly have need of further consideration - the bird would be in-hand. The odds seem to remain 'vanishingly small', however.
The 'biodegradable straws' seems like an interesting idea; they would need to be highly visible I would think, lest they simply become more needles in the Niku haystack.
All the best,