I agree with you, Tim. "Questioning," "challenging," or "disputing" are just a few examples of more appropriate words, and much less potentially loaded than "discrediting." We can wait to see the paper, but IMHO it's a poor start.
From the abstract, quoted in part below, "discrediting" appears to have been clearly pointed toward TIGHAR's treatment of Hoodless' claims, not at what is intended by the author toward TIGHAR per se. If that is a poor start for others, fine; IMO it is merely definitive as to what has been approached by the study - a point of 'hypothesis', if you will.
The conclusions of the TIGHAR reanalysis significantly contradict the original British analysis.
That seems to be a fair statement of fact.
The re-analysis is based on two primary areas: discrediting Dr. D. W. Hoodless’ analysis, which identified them as belonging to a stocky, middle-aged male,...
A fact IMO, if the language is rather tart.
...and using Hoodless’ metrics in FORDISC to produce a finding of most likely white (European-type) female.
We are thus put on notice that the author clearly questions the approach used by TIGHAR, said approach being in fact, a fact.
It is clear that one should not attend there expecting to see an opener by a TIGHAR cheer squad. Any potential attendee is well advised of what to expect, I agree, to include -
This paper examines the re-analysis, original data and other sources to ascertain which of the results are best supported.
Quite fair and benign, IMO. But yes, there is the pointed point -
The evidence suggests that the TIGHAR conclusions are significantly flawed and that there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations.
That is rather conclusory, but not surprising given that again, I am sure the central thinking in this new analysis is mature, or we'd not be seeing this sketch. One of course would expect to see convincing 'evidence', as promised; one objectively would also hold with 'we shall see', I would hope and agree.
So look on that as one will - conclude, in fact, as one will. But to prejudge based on a 'poor start' by the brisk 'discredit' term might be to miss hearing just what this graduate upstart is to suggest, which may be a number of things, such as possibly something a) worthy of consideration, b) clearly game-changing, or c) of utter nonsense sloping toward mean skepticism. My best guess is "a", for now.
Whether one would bother attending would be up to them, of course. I will not be, and will await the paper's availability. The point however is one may go as prepared as one wishes - well equipped to leave having shot holes in what was heard if they will and are able, but one hopes without clutching prejudice so as to hear with reasonable openness what is offered, and then to judge.
I await the paper. I am not eager to see the partial skeleton relegated to the closet, but I cannot judge a challenge until I've heard (or read) it and defensiveness at this point has no place IMO. The thumbnail hardly seems offensive to me, especially in this search environment that constantly surrounds Earhart.