Jeff, thank you for your very thoughtful, and as usual, well scripted reply.
No, I don't feel that camps are appropriate here, either, and I know everyone is making his own honest effort towards the same ultimate goal. Skepticism is essential in all such endeavors and your own trail of posts proves its efficacy in forcing eyes and minds to produce the very best possible answers.
I have tried here never to claim "proof" of anything, but only to bring out suggestions of what my own eyes see and how my own mind (for the purpose of discussion) sets thes various items in a logical context. But if my eyes "see" what looks to me like a banjo, and then I Google away and find (to my surprise) that Amelia Earhart played the banjo, which gives some credibility to the possibility that a banjo might be found in this context, then I don't feel that it is particularly useful for others to summarily dismiss the possibility just because Amelia Earhart was concerned about takeoff weight. More useful to the effort, in my opinion, would be to ask further why there might be a banjo there, and why would it be outside its case? I don't agree with Mr. Kelly, for instance, that "The alternative is just too dire to consider." Perhaps Mr. Kelly "can't handle the truth" as Jack Nickelson meant it, but I feel that we must let the questions lead us to further answers, not bury them to avoid difficult conclusions.
Let us all continue in good faith.