Wasn't it you, however, that saw an expedition to the jungles of East New Britain as warranted by the report of a tag with a tantalizing number on it? From one of your replies in the 'New Britain Hypothesis' -
The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine. It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop. That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra. A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find.
What's fine for you to undertake may look like a flying leap of faith to me.
Looks that way to me, too.
How many archaeological artifacts do the New Britain folks have to offer? None.
How many photographs of the crash site? None.
How many other witnesses confirming the anecdote about the "constructor number"? None.
How many examples of constructor numbers appearing on tags in other airframes? None.
How much evidence offered that the Electra could close within 100 miles of Howland, then fly back to New Britain? None.
How much archaeology ("digging and dating") has been done at the New Britain crash site? None.
How many pieces of circumstantial evidence tend to point in the direction of New Britain as the crash site? None.
Malcolm's conviction that the anecdote deserves the expenditure of time and money seems to be amazing fact- (and artifact-) free speculation. But, of course, his assertion that the New Britain project deserves TIGHAR support is, in his view, merely a question, not a declaration of belief. The following is to be read in the interrogative mood, not the declarative: "
something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."