The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.
For once I am speechless.
Why - I would have thought that if the evidence is accepted by those who can actually evaluate the various aspects of the evidence with some informed knowledge then your task is much nearer to a happy conclusion, one which I for one hope you achieve. I am not being boastful, nor am I attempting to set up my rather modest abilities as the benchmark, which seems to be the implication of your reply, all I am saying is that if someone like myself who has some professional experience with human remains in an archaeological setting can see that a hypothesis has some merit and says so and why then that makes, albeit in small way, TIGHAR's task of convincing others hopefully a little easier. Now it may transpire that I am wrong about the skeleton's identity but at the least I can see when further data is presented where I am wrong - and I will freely admit I was wrong. That is just how a professional works.
That is why people with the necessary qualifications don't get involved with lunatic fringe theories about how the pyramids were built by spacemen with matter transfer technology or how Noah's Ark can be seen sitting on the side of Mt Ararat. But, as we are aware, there are apparently millions of people who take the word of a document like the Bible for example, which as biblical scholars can demonstrate irrefutably is a very deliberate compilation of ancient stories, as completely true and reject evolution, embrace the fact that Noah and his Ark existed and many other assorted fairy tales all based on the willingness to believe rather than the capacity to understand that the compilation was made at the direction of various powerful special interest groups and political leaders over a space of 2000 years.
Now speaking for myself I accept that people are allowed to believe what they will but if I want a proper assessment of something I will seek the opinion of someone who has the proper training to evaluate the evidence. Accordingly I would think that TIGHAR would prefer that their Nikumaroro hypothesis is accepted as proven by people who actually understand the complexities of the evidence offered rather than simply accepted by people, no matter how well meaning or interested, who don't understand the complexity. But that's just me I guess.
That is also why people like myself interrogate the evidence offered. That is why I ask about seemingly small details like the other anomalies in the Bevington photo and why I am sceptical about the interpretation of the partial skeleton recovered by Gallagher. After all a short stocky male of Islander origin is, as anyone can observe, completely different to a tall gracile female of Northern European heritage. Doubt based on that simple premise is not unfounded or simply being negative for negative's sake, nor is it a slur on anyone who supports the reassessment, it is an honest reaction and one I would hope that most people would have the sense to feel.