Why is that John
Malcolm has had daily phone contact with David Billing's of the New England hypothesis, which is based on a engine tag found by a member of a ground troop in jungle of new Britain, What little evidence they found was lost in personnel in following month's. Yet Malcolm believe's the new Britain hypothesis is just as good as Tighar's hypothesis. Yet because the skeletal remain's Have gone missing there is no proof that they were of a european woman, So why shouldn't the engine tag be scruitinised the same , Without the engine tag there is no evidence at all to support the hypothesis. Yet Tighar has evidence separate from bones found to support hypothesis. Yet Malcolm is very critical of that.
hmmm
G'day Richie.
Well not quite in daily contact with David - I last spoke to him about 3 weeks ago IIRC, and I might add, if it is relevant, he rang me.
Given that no one to date has found anything more than information or artifacts that might suggest a solution to the Earhart/Noonan puzzle then until some one comes up with the deal closer then I am afraid that each hypothesis offered has a chance of being right. However some are less likely than others due to internal factors in the argument. You can make up your own mind as to which ones are more or less likely.
Now elsewhere I have questioned the East New Britain hypothesis but one must admit that if that is a construction number on that tag attached to the engine bearer of a Lockheed Electra then that will take it to the top of the list. I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks. Then, of course, Nauticos may find the Electra in deep water so that would close the deal properly. The Saipan spy story is ruled out if we follow Gary LaPook's reasoning (something with which I can, in my limited knowledge, see no fault) but that doesn't rule out a folk tale that may have originated in the Gilberts which were under Japanese occupation after the Pacific War broke out and the Japanese were not shy of using natives as virtual slave labour where they were needed. I suggest the Gilberts because there is the Vidal story that Earhart had nominated the Gilberts as a possible emergency landing spot if the missed Howland which as we all know they did. It is a long shot but in the absence of anything concrete elsewhere then so far it remains in contention.
Now you are right that the skeleton has gone missing and in its absence, however, it was reassessed as female instead of male and had its ethnic origins changed. Now I don't think I am being overly picky is saying that building a part of a case on missing evidence which has been reidentified so that it is offered as hypothetical support for one's hypothesis is dangerous in that it immediately invites scepticism regardless of whether your overall hypothesis is right or wrong. The engine tag C/N was noted by observers way back in 1945 - so far as we are aware that wreck has not been located so as in the case of the absence of wreckage on Nikumaroro I'd say that things are in tennis terms love all. Now criticism has been levelled at the means by which the tag and its number were noted however if that criticism is admissible then so is the criticism directed at the testimony of Emily Sikuli about seeing aircraft wreckage near the
Norwich City when elsewhere on the island Gallagher was recovering the partial skeleton which he thought was Earhart and which is, as we know, now missing. The question is that Ms Sikuli was intelligent enough to be sent off the island for more training yet she omits to mention the wreckage to Gallagher - why?
As for the problems surrounding the attempts to dismiss the Navy fly over see my summation here
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg19253.html#msg19253 . The post loss radio messages are subject to huge debate so read what Gary La Pook and others have to say. I am not alone in querying these things. The thread on the Bevington object has my own and the questions and comments of others - so once again I am not the sole person out of step.
The comments on the two ROV videos have yet to identify a single solitary demonstrable piece of aircraft wreckage. The only thing that is man made so far is in the first and is a piece of what could be thin nylon rope or wire cable. There is nothing else. And I might add that is the current position of TIGHAR regarding the first video - we are awaiting their assessment of the second.
The freckle cream jar seems to have run up against a brick wall. No proof that it was Earhart's or used by her or even available to her elsewhere. The Seven Site is a well excavated archaeological exercise which hasn't yielded anything that can be traced to Earhart. And to cap it off the island has had a string of visitors since the early 19th century, it has had a shipwreck, two attempts at settlement and setting up coconut plantations (Arundel in 1892 and PISS 1939 to 1965) and in 1944 to 1946 a US Coast Guard base (the Loran station) all of whom have left traces of European and European influenced material artifacts. So you must forgive me if I remain sceptical in the absence of a demonstrated chunk of Electra wreckage. You can accept that TIGHAR's hypothesis is proven if you want, but I don't.