I think the operative phrase in that sentence is "IF such a detailed report is required" - more of a passive invitation for someone to pursue further if the need was seen, not so much a notion that it was necessarily required.
Quote the whole point that Hoodless made (from Bones Chronology):
"9. If further details are necessary I am prepared to take detailed and exact measurements of the principal bones in this collection, and to work out the various indices ( e.g. the platymeric index for the femur or the cnemic index for the tibia ) but if such a detailed report is required the obvious course to adopt would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Dept of the Sydney University where Professor Elkin would be only too pleased to make a further report."
One may readily infer from this that Hoodless is admitting that his measurements weren't as exact as the could have been.
Tim,
That is a very fair observation IMO, and you've just made the whole point of this very well with me with that quote and your statement -
The fact is, we have direct evidence (Hoodless' own summary) in but one limited sense - that the examination left much opportunity for a more exacting analysis.
We have another definitive and limiting condition in that we don't have a record of a more exact analysis such as Hoodless suggests actually having been done. Hence we lack evidence of a more definite means of measurement, etc. that might serve to supervene Hoodless' more basic assessment. At the very least we are left with much room for error.
By that, I hardly see how a highly definitive / high confidence determination can be made from Hoodless' notes. What Burns had to work with was already fuzzy in terms of certainty as to the measurements she could have possibly relied on. I don't point that out to besmirch a fine and honest professional - I am sure a review of her report would show that those limitations were well acknowledge. But what Hoodless left us with is all we have to-date - and GIGO would seem to be a clear and present hazard, IMO.
I'm no pro so I am certain there is a fair chance that I will be subjected to some degree of impeachment commentary over this by those of a more optimistic view. But to me it is purely an elementary limitation, just a fundamental prospect of the investigative process: what Kar Burns had to work with was highly limited in the first place, and any 'product' would be accordingly bounded by those uncertainties.
In other words, despite the optimism her outcome provides, it is limited by the reality of very limited source data.
One additional consideration might be as well then an implication that not only did Hoodless not see the bones as likely candidates for Earhart's wretched remains, but that those 'in charge' similarly lacked enthusiasm for that pursuit for God alone now knows how many or what reasons. Not proof, but it just seems to me, to my disappointment I admit, that there is an implicit low-probability of these poor bones being Earhart's in the contemporary view, and that the more modern view is severely limited.
Again, I do not doubt Burns' sincerity - and expect that she likely accepted these limits openly (others may read and judge for themselves), so no lack of her integrity is meant to be implied; but the fact is, no matter how powerful her tools and methods, she was severely limited by Hoodless' admittedly limited 'product' in the first place.
As to -
Did Hoodless know the context of the finding of the bones and that they might be Earhart's? Was it a"general" or "blind" analysis
I think he was well aware if the whole record of how the bones arrived is considered, other's MMV.