I've been following this thread since the beginning. I've also kept up with the information on both David's and TIGHAR's websites -- along with a lot of other sources of information.
In summary, I believe there is little reason to accept TIGHAR's recent bone information "analysis" as anything more than what is referred to as confirmation bias.
I'm certainly not saying this means Ms. Earhart definitively ended up on New Britain, but David's research has as much basis -- if not more -- for New Britain being taken as seriously as any conclusions TIGHAR suggrests.
Sam