even if the anomaly's is not aircraft wreckage, or rocks thrown up from reef ledge, they are not natural occurrence ?
Richie, how do you know they are not a natural occurrences? To me they just look like momentary clearings in the silt and muck caused by currents. That "object" at the reef edge bears no resemblance to any part of an aircraft. As for "there was enough fuel to fire the engines up" when it was parked, then parked is the operative word and what better place to park an aircraft you are trying to preserve than on shore rather at the edge of a reef subject to tide, large waves, wind and other damaging conditions. If the aircraft was still airworthy, and had fuel then it was Earhart and Noonan's lifeline, if not for flying but certainly to send radio messages - not something to be left in a dangerously exposed position on the outer edge of a reef.
Also it seems to me that in their eagerness people are forgetting that the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on Nikumaroro Island is just that, a hypothesis. They are also extrapolating from that unproven hypothesis that therefore the alleged post-landing radio messages must have come from Nikumaroro Island rather than elsewhere and taking a further leap unto the dangerous world of creating hypotheses from hypotheses, they are then creating an imaginary series of events concerning the use and subsequent loss of the Electra and the subsequent behaviour and fate of EA and FN, all to explain the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Now I am not claiming super powers of intelligence, but to me that chain of thought seems to be starting at the wrong end. What we see is a classic case of inventing a solution then working backwards to cherry pick information and creating purely hypothetical constructions to support it. Believe me that that is as far from scientific analysis of data as it is possible to get.
To do all that they first must "establish" that the Electra landed on Nikumaroro, then to explain why it wasn't sighted by the Navy searchers (trained observers) they have to park it on the edge of the reef where it can be conveniently washed away by the sea. That is how flimsy the case is - no amount of imaginative studying of aerial photos, or those imaginative "identifications" of aircraft parts in the footage taken by the ROV has added anything in the way of real evidence. Even "Nessie" could be anything, including an out of focus image of a person walking across the inner reef area.
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.
The Nikumaroro landing is just one hypothesis explaining what happened to Earhart and Noonan and to be honest currently there is not much in the way to physical evidence to support it. That is not to say it isn't a possibility, just to say instead that it remains an unproven hypothesis like a ditching at sea somewhere in the vicinity of Howland Island; the New Britain crash while following a reciprocal course; or the possibility that Earhart and Noonan having decided not to waste fuel looking for Howland set a course for the Gilberts and came down somewhere there. I simply don't buy the idea of them landing on the most exposed portion of the island they could possibly pick that's all.