Scott
I too agree that re-examining data we've already analyzed is often very productive, and there are several examples where re-examination has yielded results that either do or do not support TIGHAR's general hypothesis. Examples would include the navigator's bookcase (eventually determined not to be Earhart Related) the water tank at the 7 site (initially dismissed as Earhart related, but now central to locating the castaway camp and the castaway's last resting spot), the Blucher Oxford shoe (looks like hers, but re-analysis shows it isn't the right size), and the Bevington photo which we examined intensely for more than a decade, only to discover that we were looking at a cropped version that excluded what turned out to be the most interesting part of the photo. No doubt there are other examples. Some of these items have turned out to be red herrings, generally determined to be so by our own re-analysis, but they sustained the project in odd ways that allowed us to collect more data over time that has proven to be much more interesting.
All of that doesn't really answer your question regarding caches of information that haven't been examined, or fully examined. While I think most data has been examined to some degree, I don't think that we can say that everything we've ever collected has been exhaustively analyzed. There was sonar fish data from very early on (1989?) that seems to have been lost to the sands of time in some Govt. Office, and there is magnetometer data from the lagoon that is apparently in some format nobody can read, and sonar mapping from the lagoon that was collected, reviewed in the field, but probably never re-examined. All of that stuff was inconclusive at the time it was examined, and unlikely to yield much now, particularly if it was collected in areas we no longer think are likely target areas. Then there are the some 100,000 photos and some 1000-2000 hours of video that has been taken over some 12 expeditions. How do you prioritize what you want to look at again?
If you are looking for projects to work on, I know we've talked about trying to put all the data into a GIS database system that would allow integration and sorting by expedition, year, location, and whatever other characteristics we can determine would be useful. We haven't pursued this because it is a huge project given the amount of stuff we've collected over the years, would suck up a huge amount of resources and man hours. It would be important for the archaeological scientific aspect of the project and Kiribati history, but in the end probably would not help us in solving the Earhart mystery. Given the limited resources, the time and effort would be better spent on current research, or organizing another expedition.
Lets find the Naval Observatory calibration records which could show us that a sextant with the right number pair was in the Naval inventory.
Lets find a higher resolution photo of the right side of the Electra so we can better understand the patch that was installed.
I'm sure there are other projects Ric might suggest, but those two are projects anyone can work on.
Best
Andrew