I think we should re-title this thread "Interminable Flogging of Dead Horses."
----------------------------
Sure, we have both stated our positions clearly, others can read it and make up their own minds.
What is interesting is how we each approach this issue and the many other issues we have discussed over the last 9 years. I am a skeptic, I have serious doubts about your theory (I have much more serious doubts about the various Japanese capture theories though.) So when I see information that calls into doubt theories about the disappearance, such as the POD tables, I use it to evaluate the theory. Since the POD tables show a high cumulative probability that they should have been spotted
IF they had been on the island, this just increases my doubts about your theory. You, on the other hand, KNOW,
in your heart of hearts, that Earhart was on Gardner so the search, no matter how thorough or professional must have missed seeing them for some reason, hiding in the bush, couldn't get to the beach in time, the pilots were untrained, drunk, blind, misapplying the POD tables, etc., always some way to explain away anything that doesn't comport with your
certain knowledge that Earhart was on Gardner. After all, there must be something wrong with the search because
Earhart WAS THERE.
I hope you are successful in finding indisputable evidence that actually proves your theory, I would like to know the answer to this mystery before I die, so good luck.
gl