> ... I respectfully submit that in science those rules do not have much real force ...
When you declare (assert without evidence) what is true and false about "science," you leave your field of digging and dating and enter a different arena.
You are making generalizations about what "science" is and does.
You are not making these generalizations by using the methods of science, but by using the methods of philosophy, history, sociology, psychology (introspective, not experimental), etc.
I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.
Newton's theory of universal gravitation as the explanation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion was accepted as a reality long before the experimental data of stellar parallax confirmed Newton's theory. It was entirely a circumstantial evidence case. No one sees gravity; we infer its existence from watching other things happen. Newton did not see that the other planets are essentially just like the earth; he supposed it and showed the consequences that followed from that supposition. He showed how the pieces fit--Galileo's laws of motion, Kepler's ellipses, and his own theory of gravity. People were sold on the idea, and they were right to be sold on it.
The Niku hypothesis is nowhere near that strong. Everything in the case could have come from someone else.
Additionally we have the reality that a jury can be swayed by circumstances which despite the evidence presented will go against what the evidence provides.
Scientists function as a jury, too. The man whose biography I completed for Oxford University Press in 2005 was told that his theory of the adsorption of gases was wrong by Einstein, Planck, and Haber. They were wrong, and Polanyi was right, but he could not show why they were wrong until quantum mechanics was developed.
In science we ...
I know you're using shorthand again. What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..." Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists.
... attempt to reach conclusions free of extraneous issues such as mitigation etc. and only reflect what the data presented dictates. Courts of law allow for human frailty where they can - science doesn't.
The courts aren't "allowing for human frailty." They accept the fact that sometimes events take place that cannot be directly observed. This is true of all nuclear events. We know them only by their effects; we do not see quantum phenomena.
But that aside, I cannot recall that I have called into question any of the qualifications of your team and in fact why should I. In any scientific endeavour, unless there was blatant and obvious manipulation of data, one trusts the capabilities of those who present their results. I certainly have never questioned Dr King's results and I cannot even imagine why I should. My assessment of the archaeology of Nikumaroro is based on his published material. Neither have I questioned the work of Dr Burns, again I have suggested that if the actual material was relocated then it would provide a surer basis for claims made about it. There is nothing unreasonable in that as far as I can see.
Great! Then we agree that it was a reasonable thing for a scientist of her caliber to work with the measurements provided by Dr. Hoodless. That's a step forward, I believe.
However none of that affects what is the primary purpose of this forum which is to discuss the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence on which it is based.
You're the one who keeps presenting his credentials as a trained scientist, modest, objective, logical, and dispassionate. You assert things about science that are not from the field in which you hold your credentials. When someone makes a statement based on their own personal authority, it seems to me that it is OK to evaluate whether they are, in fact, authorities on the point in question.