you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?
No. I was merely pointing out that you consistently get the facts wrong. Just wondering why.
Confusion is bound to occur when a timeline posting is your preferred Website format, with papers posted upon time of completion in a time of finish format, evidence pictures, and analysis in different areas in a random fashion that has been mentioned by more than one researcher as hard to follow. As an example, there is no one place on your site that lists all the jars found, and all their lab reports. Perhaps a re-organization would help now that the documents have grown so large?
If I was incorrect on the composition of a compact case, I would say that is because of the way it was presented. I am not sure Tighar actually has a found compact case. Do you have a found compact case? You indicate the mirror found fits the compact case , the case is not metal. That does not say a compact case was found at the seven site. You state the compact case is "not metal", yet present a picture of a Mondaine case matching the one owned by Earhart.
The one in Purdue achives is certainly metal.
Does Tighar have a compact case found at the seven site, and is it plastic, wood? Tighar presents a sample case and a picture of metal Mondaine compact case in it's achives,forgive me for assuming it matches one found on site. That does not make me ignorant, I am reviewing the evidence and pictures presented by Tighar itself.
I also do not consider summarizing telegrams as "consistently getting the facts wrong." You make a large issue on whether Gallagher actually stated the word "benedictine" bottle in his telegrams. He obviously was trying to locate the bottle found near the remains. Whether he called it "benedictine", or his superiors called it Benedictine, they are speaking of the same bottle.
That is not getting the facts wrong. It is stating the obvious.
Gallagher wanted a bottle held or retrieved in case it was connected to Earhart. He was thinking of not just bones but personal items and survival items and was trying to retrieve them before lost. I was not wrong about that.
Also the main point of inquiry remains, and has been stated many times, there was a search in 1940, probably more than one search, for items that could be connected to the deceased. Everything that could be found, was found. Yet, Tighar comes along 75 years later approx. and locates bottles and other items it connects to the castaway.
They were either not there, or missed during the 1940 search(s).
The extent of the search by Gallagher and possibly workers is summarized in Tighar's own research-
"In September 1940 Gallagher arrived, heard about the skull, and by September 23 had conducted what he termed a “thorough search” and found bones and artifacts. On October 17 he advised his superiors that an “organized search” would take “several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of island is not yet cleared.” On October 23, Dr. Macpherson in Fiji recommended that “the search be continued with a view to discovering farther [sic] bones, personal trinkets, etc.” and on October 26 the Secretary of the High Commission wired Gallagher that an “Organised search should be made in the vicinity….” Finally, on December 27, 1940, in a letter accompanying the bones and artifacts as they were shipped off to Fiji, Gallagher confirmed that an “intensive search” had been made. (See The Bones Chronology.)
The relevant terms throughout is "intensive", "thorough", "Organized",More than one search. I don't think "organized" indicates Gallagher did it himself.
So I would agree with Mr.Kada, and disagree with Mr.Gillespie that Gallagher did the searches himself alone. It also stresses how thoroughly the AREA was to be searched for additional items.
No clothing was found. Yet this was 3 years after the Earhart flight. There have been numerous murder cases where clothing was found years after a body dumping. Yet in this case, No hair, no clothes found. That fact to an investigator indicates age of greater than 3 years, as does Gallagher's description of the bones of greater than 3 years, as does the examining doctor's description of bones older than 3 years.
So if we want to discuss exactly when the term "benedictine" was used, fine. It's relevance to me pales in comparison to the lack of items found by gallagher during his multiples searches to gather items possibly connected to the castaway.
As others have also indicated, this is a problem noticed by more than one researcher. The people noting this discrepancy are not all ignorant or mistating evidence.
There should have been more items found during Gallagher's "intensive" searches(if AE), and it is improbable these early searches missed the items Tighar now considers evidence of AE. During the early searches, the site was free of WWII debris, clean of settlers detritus, and roofing debris and water tanks, and vacuum tubes and coke bottles and plates. No I am not a time traveler, but I do know that items left outside for 70 years tends to look worse for the wear than items 3 years old.
C'mon, it does not take a time traveler to know if Gallagher was looking at an area that held a cosmetic mirror, that mirror would have looked better then than 75 years later.
Yet no mirror was found then.
Also not one item on the Lae inventory or a proven personal item of the Occupants has been found in 1940 or in the decades since.
Perhaps that means there were no occupants of the seven site in 1937 as related to Earhart.
The evidence that should have been found, a plane full of items from tools to gas cans...and clothing, hair, personal items like watches, rings speak a whole lot louder than the broken jars that have been found.
This site make no sense for a castaway of 1937. All the wood(lifeboats) are near the Norwich. The place to be seen is near the Norwich. Remaining food Supplies near the Norwich. Shelter trees near the Norwich.
Castaways seek shelter, food, fire.
All of that is up the beach about 2 miles. The plane gets parked near the Norwich and then they hike down to some random spot in the scrubs and camp? Leaving their wood supply of lifeboats? Leaving their giant beacon signal ship whch will get noticed? Who in their right mind leaves that?
Then die and leave behind nothing like clothes or tools behind at this seven site? Where are the clothes, where is the toolbox with hatchet and other tools, where are the food containers they hauled down from the Norwich camp, a stack of wood remaining to be burned? They just die in this area and leave behind no clothes or tools or papers, or personal belongings that can be identified as Earhart's or Noonan's?
3 years after going down it is impossible their clothes and tools disintegrated by the time Gallagher searched.
It appears this "castaway camp" if it was a castaway camp, was before the Norwich ran aground, but in any event has no connection with the Earhart case.
That is just one country cop's opinion of the seven site.