Did that in my very first post, my friend. And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing. And round and round we go. So shall we move on?
Well I suggest that the quickest way out of a circle is straight cut - don't play games and tell me what vital piece of evidence I have dismissed, as distinct from the ones I have actually discussed.
So far, I don't know about you, but I haven't actually seen any demonstrably vital pieces of material evidence that I haven't discussed.
Ugh. Dude. You keep playing this game where evidence need be "demonstrably vital" or "conclusive". I keep pointing out to you that it
doesn't.
Evidence is not proof. It's merely a factoid or that is indicative of this or that theory being correct. When the truth cannot be proved or known, weighing the factoids at hand as objectively as possible is the best way to form a hypothesis that may lead to a provable truth -- which is exactly what TIGHAR does and why I like their approach so much. Then you do a nice job of running down a bunch of evidence that you simply don't think proves anything. No one's saying it does. The point is, though, that it IS evidence, and whether or not it is "demonstrably vital" is totally in the eye of the beholder, and evidence need not be "conclusive." Evidence that is "conclusive" has another name:
proof.
As for what is "demonstrably vital"...to me, for example, five DF bearings from separate operators on different post-loss messages all intersecting at Gardner on a frequency no one but the Itasca and Amelia Earhart should have been using is extremely hard to explain away other than *huff* blowing it off. Your reasons for dismissing it didn't in the earlier post make sense to me, but it doesn't really matter...in
my view, that data point alone is extremely convincing, because there just aren't many other explanations that are really believable. Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest and most logical explanation is the signals came from the Earhart plane, and at least one operator who knew her voice was certain both of that and of the bearing. To
me, that is extremely compelling evidence. To
you, it isn't. Fine. But your logical basis for dismissing that data point (to use one example) made no sense to me, and still doesn't.
So once again -- fourth time now, right? It's about demanding evidence be conclusive or demonstrably vital to you -- which is both a subjective bar to clear AND misunderstanding what the function of "evidence" is. I don't think the point I've been making, or my effort to make it clear, has really changed since the first time I've posted, and you haven't really struck me is grasping the distinction for whatever reason. So anyhows, I'm tired of talking about it, cool? Or more accurately, I'm tired with taking up thread space with it. These tit for tats get boring for those not titting or tatting.