Amen. You just need to work on the "rigour" part.
I think Ric that you should withdraw that remark - it is going against forum rules.
I'm not aware of a forum rule against giving advice. You do it all the time.
Besides all the points I have made are valid,
No, they are not. That's why I suggested that you exercise more rigour.
your complaint is simply because I disagree with TIGHAR's assessment of the evidence provided to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis
My complaint is that you disagree without offering anything but your own lofty opinion which more often than not proves to be based on only a cursory familiarity with TIGHAR's research.
- something in which I am not alone.
Those on this forum who interpret the evidence differently than you seem to be quite capable of speaking for themselves. Or are you speaking of your acquaintance and fellow Australian David Billings who has been desperately trying to get some traction for his bizarre theory by attacking TIGHAR's work and me personally? Tell me Malcolm, how long have you known Mr. Billings? Does your acquaintance with him predate your appearance on this forum?
The fact is that the Navy fliers did not see anyone on the island, they did not see an aircraft and they were the only witnesses in the vicinity of Gardner immediately after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan.
It is also a fact that the senior aviator reported unexplained "signs of recent habitation" and later described them as "markers of some kind." Reasonable people can differ about how to interpret those remarks but, given the frequent failure of aerial searches in general, and TIGHAR's own direct experience with the difficulty of seeing people on Gardner from the air, to say that AE and FN could not have been on Gardner because the Navy pilots didn't see them is - to use your term - special pleading.
As I have posted several times TIGHAR have needed to construct a series of hypotheses to support that hypothesis all of which seem to stem from either painting the Navy searchers as incompetent,
We have never painted the Navy pilots as incompetent. (An example of your lack of rigour.)
having Earhart and Noonan collapsed from starvation and thirst on an island which does have food available and quite probably water at the time,
We have never suggested that Earhart and Noonan were unable to respond to the Navy overflight because they had collapsed from starvation and thirst. (It's that rigour thing again.)
and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.
Good.