I think HumblyTossed is suggesting this group do exactly what Cameron did: investigate and document but not remove. If this is Earhart's plane, it's probably also her grave. We generally frown on disturbing the resting places of the dead for commercial purposes.
What "worth" do you see in placing it in a museum?
Only because no one knew where she was to bury her properly.
I assume you don't say that we shouldn't recover bodies from ANY plane crash; most people would expect bodies to be moved from a plane crash to be buried properly.
Why is this one different? The length of time it took to find the crash, I assume. So how long before we can't move the body because it is a grave? 3 months? A year? 10 years?
I don't think I would consider this a grave, and recovering the body and burying it properly is not grave robbing.
> I don't think I would consider this a grave
If by not a "grave" you mean not an "intentional burial site" I agree. But it would be a final resting place and, to the question I was answering ("why would people object") that's a thing that people care about being handled with the proper care and consideration.
Trying to guess how other people would feel about things is a complete academic exercise in this case for me.
Example: https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAviationMuseumofWesternCanada/...
The same value as anything else in a museum? It's historically important, and also really cool, the kind of thing that inspires kids and even adults.
(I saw Halifax W1048 at an impressionable age and am very glad I did)