My fear is that the overall work compiled by you and Mr. Brandenburg might be discounted by naysayers because of the seeming double standard in how credibility is determined.
Naysaying is a mind set. I've seen it at work among our own researchers and have come to understand that it has little to do with facts or reason. I've stopped worrying about naysayers.
I don't believe you are doing this at all, but I could see others who are promoting their own theories making the argument that reports supporting the Gardner hypothesis are deemed "credible" while any that contradict it are deemed "not credible." On the contrary, I believe you've made a convincing case that the aggregate of these reports supports the case of a landing at Gardner regardless of whether individual examples like Betty Klenck or Mabel Larremore are labeled as "credible" or "uncertain."
"Uncertain" is not a lesser grade of "credible." When we say "uncertain" we're saying that there is not enough information to make a judgement about credibility.
You're right, it's the aggregate of all the findings that makes the case. Our analysis tests the hypothesis that the signals came from the Earhart plane parked on the reef at Gardner. In no case is the credibility of a signal influenced by whether or not it supports that hypothesis. It happens that all of the credible signals could have been sent from the reef at Gardner. The hypothesis is therefore supported. Of course, some other unstated and untested hypothesis might also be supported but would have to pass the same rigorous tests.
1) Perhaps the "Qual Factors" could be clearly broken into pros and cons listing factors in favor of the transmission being a legitimate Earhart message and those opposed. Whether it be the "LA hoaxers" and Charles Miguel or Betty, Mabel, Nina, etc., lack of reception by other stations around the same time would be a con. The former group has additional factors against it while the latter has other factors in favor which help make a more balanced judgement of credibility.
Right now we discuss the "Qual Factors" for each signal in a short narrative paragraph.
We could, I suppose, replace the paragraph with a checklist of pros and cons with each factor being assigned a value. Some factors would be "gatekeepers" that are by nature binary.
Frequency? The message must have been heard on 3105, 6210 or a harmonic of those frequencies. If it wasn't it's an automatic "Not Credible."
Well-sent code? Automatic "Not Credible."
Description of a floating airplane? Automatic "Not Credible."
And so forth.
Other factors are trickier and would require that we assign a range of values that would be, by definition, arbitrary. For example,
- What is simultaneous reception by another station worth? One positive point? Five positive points?
- What is it worth if dashes are heard immediately following a request for dashes? One positive point? Five positive points?
- What if an otherwise credible amateur later changes her story, as Paxton did, to include information that is not credible? One negative point? Five negative points?
The result would be to make each catalog entry interminably long and create the impression that we're trying to quantify factors that are unavoidably qualitative. The catalog cannot hope to present the entire case for or against each signal. Naysayers will undoubtedly dismiss our conclusions about the post-loss radio signals with generalities just as they do with our archival evidence and artifacts. We can defend our evaluation of any signal with reams of specifics. I think it's best to leave our "Qual Factors" just as they are.
2) I think I struggle with the concept of "credible" because it is so binary. Something can be barely credible or extremely credible yet it is "graded" equally in the catalog. Another idea to consider is changing from "credibility" to "level of confidence" that the signal was from the Electra.
I'm not sure you understand what we mean by "credible." It does not mean “proven to be authentic.” The only way to prove that a signal was an authentic communication from Amelia Earhart would be to ask her if she sent it and, given our aversion to psychics, we haven't found a way to do that. "Credible" means we haven't found a reason that it couldn't be a genuine signal from the Electra. There are no gradations. Either the message is disqualified or it's not.