1. It's fun. It's also just people on a message board.
2. People thinking out of the box, and with a firm grasp on the big picture, very often arrive at the correct answer where people who consider themselves experts, and so blind themselves to answers that are before them, but may conflict with long-standing biases or lie beyond the narrow focus of their own sense of expertise, do not.
Hello Adam
If you read very carefully and thoroughly what I said then you will see that nowhere have I blown off the evidence as you so oddly put it. However what you are actually saying is that you find the fact that I am clearly not overwhelmed by the case put forward by TIGHAR somewhat of an affront to yourself.
I was asked a question - I put forward my reasons for not indulging in what I consider to be useless and scientifically unsound speculation about a purely
hypothetical event. That is what sensible people do, especially people from an archaeological background like myself. I have no interest in creating an imaginary reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's last days based on the quite inconclusive information from Betty's notebook of a transmission she heard which might have come from Gardner or an island in the Gilberts. Seems to me all the theories put forward about the hypothesised events on Gardner Island come from that garbled account. A victory of imagination over rational consideration.
Dr Hoodless was a experienced doctor, he also was conversant with the physical anthropology of Polynesians. He was not some village general practitioner viewing his first set of skeletal remains. It may well be the people who carried out the assessment of his notes are right but that will not be known until or, if ever, the missing fragments of the skeleton are found on Nikumaroro or the ones that Hoodless examined turn up. That is all one can say given the current level of evidence. I am not denying anything I am simply pointing out that there is not enough available to build a case.
The artifacts recovered by Gallagher were recovered in far less than ideal archaeological circumstances. Very simply put we have no record of their actual physical relationship to the skeletal material. Clearly they have significance but what do they signify? Parts of a woman's shoe are found near some partial skeletal remains that is identified by an experienced anatomist as that of a short male of Polynesian heritage. Over 50 years later two physical anthropologists are asked by the team investigating if Nikumaroro is where the Earhart round the world flight ended. They don't have these partial remains at all yet they say that Dr Hoodless was completely wrong and that the skeleton was instead that of a slender tall white woman who just happens to match Amelia Earhart's physique. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong occurring, what I am saying is that I would like to see some more evidence to support that assertion. I think anyone who has an ounce of scientific training would say the same thing.
As for -
Well, you have four competing hypotheses, a good deal of evidence, some of which you choose to completely discount (as opposed to approaching with open-minded skepticism) for what seem to be totally arbitrary reasons, has been amassed in favor of one, and as far as I know little or none for the other three. I respect your opinion, and I agree that nothing is conclusive. I simply submit that your means for reaching it is not as scientific nor as objective as you would have us believe.
I can reply to that in detail if you wish although I find the tone offensive. The three others are -
1. The first hypothesis is commonly known as the crashed and sank model. The only evidence of that would be if the wreck of the Electra is located on the ocean floor. Two separate expeditions have searched around Howland Island and not found it. That doesn't mean that the wreck doesn't exist, only that in that vast area of ocean it was not found. No one can say fairer than that given the current amount of data available.
2. Earhart and Noonan adopt their contingency plan as recounted to Vidal by Earhart which was that if they failed to find Howland then they would attempt to fly to the Gilberts where there are more islands and therefore a better chance of a landfall. Again no evidence is known but this could be in the ocean as in the first hypothesis or equally on some remote part of an island. No one knows. Therefore it cannot be discounted except by finding the Electra elsewhere.
3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to
http://www.electranewbritain.com/ an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.
Now against that we have the TIGHAR Nikumaroro which is based on -
1. Some small parts of a woman's shoe,
2. A partial skeleton identified at the time by a qualified anatomist as that of a short Polynesian male and 50 or more years later after the bones have vanished is re-identified as a slender tall caucasian woman by two anatomists working off the notes taken by the first anatomist.
3. One bone fragment that was of unknown origin. Human finger bone or turtle flipper bone.
4. A broken blade, some fragments of an ointment jar, the tag of a zipper, a snap clip and other assorted small items. None offering any evidence other than that they
possibly could have belonged to Earhart.
5. One piece of aluminium it is claimed fits the Electra, but which is disputed by other researchers. Some other fragments of aircraft skin which probably come from the crash on another island which is documented.
I could go on but you can see I am being quite open minded in my scepticism. I haven't denied that any of the things could be from Earhart, Noonan or the Electra, instead what I have said consistently is that
there is no evidence that conclusively points to them being from Earhart, Noonan and the Electra - there is a vast difference and something you have appeared to have ignored.
Now TIGHAR have published the computer reconstruction of what appears to be the remains of part of the undercarriage lying on the reef and have reported the sudden discovery of that anomaly (Nessie) in the photo taken on the New Zealand expedition as part of the PISS project in 1937 which is purported to be consistent with the undercarriage leg of an Electra standing upright on the reef. Both of those await to be confirmed or otherwise later this year. There is that open minded enough? I am being as rigorous and open minded as possible, this isn't a game.
