I do not see the freckle cream jar as a diagnostic artefact because it comes from a locale which, if I understand the various archaeological assessments provided by TIGHAR and some interesting commentary from another archaeologist who posted here some time back correctly, is seriously corrupted in terms of the overlapping and intertwined activity at the site. Given that TIGHAR's own consultant archaeologist has misgivings who am I, a simple interested bystander, to argue with that.
You and some others obviously ascribe different gradations of value to various lines of evidence. I accept that and quite frankly I really don't see why it poses some identity crisis for TIGHAR, as you imagine. What's wrong with pursuing multiple lines of evidence?
In the next few days, I'd like to get past the epistemological questions and talk about what Greg George told me regarding the idea for soil sample analysis. If this is no longer a subject of interest, I'll reserve it for our later presentation, in which I trust some members of the public not here represented might be mildly interested.
I see a lot of straw men assigned here, to Ric, to Tom, to one and all. Because sentence by sentence, I really don't disagree with anything said in the last couple of posts in terms of what we have or have not proven. Yet you say I do disagree. I don't get it.
But I think there is a larger point on which I and, yes, the "archaeological consultant" do disagree, and that is on the value of archaeological field research. It would be helpful if those who have criticized would list those most promising avenues for research they are personally pursuing and the steps they are taking to contribute to that effort. (Tim Mellon, your generosity and heart is legendary, and appreciated. I hugely respect it, so please do not consider yourself included in this comment.) I and the team working with me are in fact doing our very best, both in terms of our time and our limited resources. We think it worthwhile. We do not think we are solving the Earhart mystery but merely helping to build a circumstantial case. We are not about to be dissuaded by the criticisms.
Here's what Dr. King, the consultant archaeologist had to say about the straw man advanced in his name this morning:
"I think it's a silly argument, and I wouldn't pay much attention to it. If my quick read of the posts is accurate, the critics are basically saying "It's not a smoking gun, so ignore it." That's a juvenile way to conceptualize research, and not worth attending to."
Maybe I should have taken his advice. But I must add that one thing that you are doing, which is quite valuable, is to cause me to take a very critical look at my field notes and to question things I've been told. Is my case on this or that point - the hazmat argument I made earlier is an example - as good as I believe it to be? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses? For that part of the discussion, you do have my gratitude.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR