I am very familiar with your 12 years of research.
Coulda fooled me.
Yes it stands on its own merits. You have what you have and no where did I say there's no value in research. Yours has simply come up dry in terms of proving Earhart's fate, that's all. Your preponderance may vary, of course - but that's mine.
For someone who claims to be very familiar with our 12 years of research you don't even know what it's about. We've never said that the post-loss signals prove Earhart's fate. They eliminate one possible fate.
Everybody likes to talk about Dana Randolph and Betty Klenck and the other non-professionals who reported hearing intelligible messages. Their stories are fascinating and compelling but they often overshadow the multiple credible professional operators (ITASCA, the radio operators on Howland and Baker, Coast Guard Radio Honolulu, the radio operator on Nauru, HMNZS ACHILLES, Pan Am radio operators on Oahu, Midway and Wake, U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe, to name a few) whose reports document that certain electromagnetic events occurred that could not have occurred if the aircraft went down at sea. Earhart landed somewhere and sent distress calls. That much is proven. Did she land somewhere in the Gilberts? Mili? New Britain?
Abundant circumstantial evidence strongly suggests, but does not prove, where that somewhere was.
In the end there will be no substitute for physical evidence - that's just the way of these things. If twenty-something years of effort have proven anything to me it is that very thing.
An odd statement coming from someone who published a report that draws conclusions about comparing 2-2-V-1 to the Miami Patch and the Earhart Electra without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020.