I hope that the search for Amelia's Electra will continue to a positive conclusion, but as more time goes by, this must realistically become more difficult.
Let's remember that the search for Amelia's Electra is only one aspect of TIGHAR's investigation. The Electra may or may not still exist in any discoverable form. Our larger purpose is, and always has been, to test the hypothesis that the missing flight ended at Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro).
From what I have read on this forum, it seems apparent that a properly funded expedition to concentrate on an underwater search, is really the last option to establish the truth or not of previous observations.
That's true if the previous observations you're referring to are the observation of possible underwater aircraft wreckage in sonar and video.
The original plan for the last expedition using "professional" equipment would seem the best chance of success.
I wish it was that simple. The Phoenix debacle in 2012 was the work of "professionals." It's not enough to turn over the search to someone in the business who has good credentials (Phoenix is the U.S. Navy's primary contractor for underwater recoveries). Selecting the right technology and the right vendor requires judgement. There's an old saying, " Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." I hope we've made enough mistakes to know what is needed to find whatever is there - IF there is anything there.
However being unable to raise the necessary funding is a major stumbling block, and I wish you the best in raising the required funds going forward.
Thank you.
Further searches on land would unfortunately seem to be less important at this time, taking into account the years passing, and the destruction by the sea and weather of the various sites?
Let's think about that. Doing a wider, deeper underwater search with the right technology will be expensive but the pay off, if successful, would probably be conclusive. Sponsorship would require someone who was willing to take that risk. It has been done before. Much more money has been spent on unsuccessful deep water searches around Howland Island than on all the TIGHAR expeditions put together. Of course, those were commercial ventures funded by investors hoping to get a substantial return from exhibiting the aircraft. TIGHAR can offer nothing but a hefty tax deduction and the satisfaction of helping to conclusively solve an iconic mystery.
Further land searching would be far less expensive. The Seven Site is a proven and productive archaeological site that, so far, has not been damaged by over-wash. Further work there would be likely to turn up more artifacts related to the castaway and could conceivably produce something that could be linked directly to Earhart or Noonan.
Expeditions, like politics, are the art of the possible. If funding for the high-stakes underwater search is not forthcoming should we try for further archaeology at the Seven Site?
I admire your positive approach to the scientific data and artifacts that have been found, and agree that it would be to easy to put a positive spin on something, without looking at the ways to disprove the evidence.
We don't spin and nobody tries harder than we do to disprove the evidence. Those who disagree with our interpretation of an artifact or a body of data may call it spin, but spin is an intentional misrepresentation to obtain a desired response. We never, ever do that. Our interpretation may turn out to be wrong, maybe even naively optimistic, but it's always honest.