Jeff, that shot is from the tailwheel with the ferns on it (very foreground, inches from camera). The black strip (what I think you mean by "squiggly") is a void, not an object.
Well, the squiggly doesn't look like a 'void', it has distinct characteristics like a physical object would have - varigated shades of black/dark grey, as if twisted and reflecting the light differently in different places; it appears hidden behind the 'tailwheel fern' (or whatever the 'gold stuff' is) in this, your second picture (different frame from first, of course). I still think it may be a squiggly.
The trim tab is, obviously, on the trailing edge of the rudder.
I'm not disputing the shape that you see.
The rudder is sitting on top of a wing, very hard to see. Rudder and wing are yards away from camera.
Again, not disputing the shapes that you see, although YMMV compared to mine on that.
You Southern boys just aren't used to seeing things in the snow!
You are correct. Many of us are, however, fairly sure-footed in a barnyard...
In the attached photo, the wing is outlined in green dots, the rudder in blue dots. The missing aileron slot is shown in red. The inner part of the wing and the engine mount identified by John Balderston are just out of the picture to the upper left.
All of which assumes you are really looking at such relative objects, and discounts any objective measure of scale - which is what I think would be required to give some traction to your 'theory of relativity' to these various things which are all so neatly stacked...
Which raises an old point of mine - "how could such a variety of articles - a wing, a fin and rudder and tab(s) all lie so flat / in 2-dimensional presentaion and also not have one little hint of some detail in the clear for us to see?"
I'll add another prospect to that -
Airplanes don't break-up very neatly as a rule - if we're looking at the parts you describe, all shorn away from their constituant main assemblage during some catastrophic blow or blows, why no rent edges stickin up here and there, or buckling and creasing causing a vally or ridge of metal here or there?
Wings have thickness in camber, tail feathers as well to some degree (and not an insignificant degree on an L10); that suggests we should at least see a mild hump suggesting camber, and if such surfaces are subjected to break-up loads, significant buckling is typical.
I'm not saying you are wrong, Tim, just explaining my skepticism and trying to share what I think is a necessarily critical process of review. I don't think it is negative, just critical because of my own experiences and understandings. At the base of all my concerns I believe really is 'scale' - without an objective, clear means of scaling these things we don't know if they are even in the ball park: if looking at 'inches' and not 'feet', this 'sighting' is a non-starter.
That's all I can offer here. Until at least some real scale can be favorably applied, IMO there is nothing to see in this 'pile' except rocks, squigglies, rope (or cable), coral and sediment. Show that these 'things' are truly the 'right size' objectively AND in relation to each other, and then you MAY have a way to make a persuasive case about the relevant shapes... but I'd also be digging for 3-dimensional evidence - L10's are well-rounded for the most part.
Wish I could offer more, I'd love to find that bird too.