Well of course, everything is speculation until the final truth is revealed.
No, everything is not speculation and there is no such thing as the "final truth." The best you can do is show, through experimentation, that a hypothesis is supported by enough quantifiable evidence that it has a high enough probability of being correct to be accepted as true.
However, I prefer to describe my report as deduction and a new interpretation of existing facts.
You have it backward. You can't support a hypothesis with deduction. You can use deduction to formulate a hypothesis, but it's just speculation until you test it and show that it is correct. Facts are facts. They are not subject to verification but not interpretation.
I introduced position 156 to explain the confusing radio position reports received at Lae. How else do we explain them?
The coordinates in the 05:19Z position report described in Chater's letter make no sense and were apparently incorrectly heard or transcribed.
Chater said she said, "POSITION 150.7 east 7.3 south". The coordinates were probably really 157 East, 7.3 South which would put them on the southern coast of Choiseul, a spot Noonan could identify on a map. He had to have a landmark to his lat/long during the day. But that's not a testable hypothesis so we can't say it's a fact.
I deduced the generic shape of the approach to Howland and the search pattern and explained my reasoning.
You guessed what the generic shape of the approach to Howland and the search pattern might have been and explained your reasoning.
The radio reports fit on the search pattern in a logical order. What other search pattern explains the radio reports?
The plane hit the advanced LOP about 200 nm south of Howland, explored northward for a time but turned around too soon and began searching southward. It's an untestable hypothesis but we know that, due to anomaly in the dorsal antenna's radio propagation pattern,
Itasca stood virtually no canoe of hearing her a Strength 5 unless she was at least 150 nm away. It also explains how she arrived at Gardner with enough fuel to send the post-loss radio messages.
The final ditching position explains why they were not found. They were outside the search area.
There are other explanations that are much better supported by facts.
As to the radio traffic after expiry of the fuel endurance, there is nothing to explain. There is not one coherent distress message or position report.
That's not true.
Earhart did not make radio calls after alighting because the aircraft was not intact on land and was never found.
There is abundant quantifiable evidence the plane did make radio calls after alighting, so it had to be on land. There is also quantifiable evidence the credible post-loss transmissions were made only when the water level on the reef was low enough to permit an engine to be run to recharge the battery. There is also quantifiable photographic evidence of wreckage of the plane's landing gear on the reef.
On the other hand, the search effort generated a huge amount of radio traffic which could have been misinterpreted. Radio direction finding on High Frequency over 1000s of miles was nothing like as accurate as modern short range VHF direction finding.
If you can refute
Bob Brandenburg's analysis please do so.
The remains of a random castaway are irrelevant unless there is DNA or other forensic evidence.
There is other forensic evidence. If you can refute
Richard Jantz's peer-reviewed paper in the journal Forensic Anthropology please do so.
None of the physical evidence gathered so far links directly to Earhart or Noonan.
That's true. All of the physical evidence qualitative and circumstantial. It's the quantifiable electromagnetic (radio-related), photographic, and osteological evidence that established a near-100% probability that Earhart landed and died on Nikumaroro.