My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph?
Have you actually taken the time to read the
Ameliapedia article?
Have you actually read
the table with an open mind?
Looked at the pictures?
The Niku numbers fit into the Brandis pattern.
The Brandis boxes are pretty routinely marked with two numbers--if they went through the N.O.
We've collected other pairs of numbers, too, as they have come along.
I got another pair tonight that I will add later (Henry Hughes and Sons, "Huson", 41386, No No., inspection date 1 January 1945).
If you have Ludolph numbers that you would like to add to the table, please send them along.
Nowhere have I (or, I believe, TIGHAR) said that "we are looking for a Brandis box."
The thread that I created for the sextant project is entitled,
"Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?" It says nothing about wanting only Brandis numbers.
With the numbers we have collected so far, the Pensacola box and the Niku box fit best with the Brandis numbers. If you take time to read the table, you will see that the Brandis identification is labeled "theoretical." You may look at the page history to see that that label has been on those lines from the very beginning.
I don't mind defending a position I've taken. I do mind having opinions attributed to me that are demonstrably not mine. I don't have all of the TIGHAR materials memorized. If some of them go beyond the evidence at hand, you may take your complaint to the author of those materials.