Perhaps we need a Too Dumb To Live rule for threads that drag on and on when the basic premise of the thread has been shown to be invalid.
In this case we have a thread that asked the question, "Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?"
I think the answer has been clearly established. The answer is, "Maybe. Maybe not." Putnam said she had a life raft but there's no way he could know whether she carried it on the Lae/Howland flight. There is no life raft on the Luke Field inventory so we can be quite sure that, at least for that attempt to fly to Howland, a life raft was not considered necessary. So - the question "Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" is one of the many imponderables of the Earhart mysteries. Ditto for "Did Earhart Leave Her Parachutes Behind?"
Nothing resembling a life raft or parachute was apparently seen by the Colorado aerial search and we've found nothing on the island that can be identified as either life raft or parachute hardware. That may be because the airplane was never there. Or, it may mean that the airplane was there but no life raft or parachutes were aboard. Or, it may mean that a life raft and/or parachutes were aboard but went down with the plane, or any of a dozen other possible explanations for why they were not seen and haven't been found. Arguing that any conclusion can be drawn from the fact that no life raft or parachutes were seen or found is so transparently invalid that I'm surprised anyone on this forum - even those who are dedicated to challenging TIGHAR's hypothesis - would advance such an idea. How much time do we need to waste debating challenges that are based on invalid assertions?
I'm not stating a new policy. I'm asking a question. Would the subscribers to this forum appreciate more "thread discipline" from the moderators, not to stifle discussion or criticism but rather to direct discussion and criticism to topics that may actually be productive?