Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 39   Go Down

Author Topic: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream  (Read 408944 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2012, 01:37:43 AM »

 :)
I'd like to answer that but I'm ignoring you!

LTM,
Dave

Dave how old are ye, just breath in an out. Don't let Mr Happy stop u from adding ur input
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Dave McDaniel

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2012, 01:47:50 AM »

I apologize for that last post folks. even though it is true. But it was really mean and I've got to go to sleep tonight and I can't end my day like this. He asked a simple question and it really does deserve an answer.  So please allow me to respond to this as an adult.

Malcolm, you asked " Do we have any direct evidence apart from the fact Amelia Earhart once mentioned her freckles at a publicity shoot that she was carrying freckle cream?" Honest answer..I don't know. So I asked the resident freckle expert in the house, my wife, who had used every cosmetic avaliable to cover her freckles until I told her they beautiful about 20 years ago. Her answer " would Noonan leave his sextant behind?" at two o'clock in the morning... end of conversation. I believe that says it all.

You have a great day Malcolm, wherever you are!
LTM,
Dave
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2012, 05:03:42 AM »

I apologize for that last post folks. even though it is true. But it was really mean and I've got to go to sleep tonight and I can't end my day like this. He asked a simple question and it really does deserve an answer.  So please allow me to respond to this as an adult.

Malcolm, you asked " Do we have any direct evidence apart from the fact Amelia Earhart once mentioned her freckles at a publicity shoot that she was carrying freckle cream?" Honest answer..I don't know. So I asked the resident freckle expert in the house, my wife, who had used every cosmetic avaliable to cover her freckles until I told her they beautiful about 20 years ago. Her answer " would Noonan leave his sextant behind?" at two o'clock in the morning... end of conversation. I believe that says it all.

You have a great day Malcolm, wherever you are!
LTM,
Dave

So apart from the wild guess by your wife you have no idea.

That's the problem with working from an artifact to a conclusion that we would like to see proven. We are assuming that Earhart once had a jar of Dr Berry's Freckle Cream (high levels of toxic mercury guaranteed) because she expressed a concern about outdoor publicity photo shoots giving her freckles. That's it isn't it? - I haven't missed anything in the chain of evidence.

But that aside the important question is "Did she have a jar of freckle cream with her on the flight?". Now that may seem a simple question but first we must ascertain why we are asking this question. The answer to that preliminary question is that someone found in the detritus of approximately 28 years of European and European influenced Islander occupation of Nikumaroro the broken fragments of a jar that resembles jars used for the selling of propriety cosmetic products in the early and middle 20th century. Furthermore this was not found in a secure datable setting and we are uncertain as to what the jar actually contained, but we are guessing freckle cream because Earhart once expressed a concern about those pesky outdoor photo ops that gave her freckles. That's it isn't it? - I haven't missed anything in the chain of evidence. Therefore according to this chain of supposition we have an artifact that is possibly the key to the whole puzzle.

Well it is the key if our suppositions that Earhart actually used the estimable Dr Berry's toxic freckle cream are correct, and we can find in our documentary sources that she was carrying this product on the flight. But there is more, we then must suppose that after the still quite hypothetical landing on Nikumaroro by the aviators, Earhart carried this jar of freckle cream ashore with her as the Electra slowly sank, with the sun, in the west.

I think I have that right. But being a boring old archaeologist by trade I come back to the original archaeological problem which is that the remains of this jar with no proven Earhartian provenance was found in an insecure dating context amongst the detritus of approximately 28 years of European and European influenced Islander occupation of Nikumaroro. Forgive me if I appear sceptical.  :)   
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 05:05:21 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2012, 06:58:38 AM »

Forgive me if I appear sceptical.  :)

You are forgiven, but what is your argument? 
• Are you arguing that there is, as yet, no conclusive proof that Earhart died on Nikumaroro?  If so, with whom are you arguing? 
• Are you arguing that, with sufficient creative speculation, each piece of circumstantial evidence found so far may all be dismissed?  If so - again - with whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that we should not mistake possible clues for established evidence?  With whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify further investigation and testing?  If so, then you are welcome to earmark your contributions to TIGHAR for use on one of our other projects.
• Do you have an hypothesis about what happened to Earhart that you can support with better clues and evidence? If so, let's hear it.


Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2012, 10:59:03 AM »

If I may-----In Amelia's personal effects in the states, at her home, was there a bottle of Freckle cream? Granted, all the principles of this mystery are now watching from above, but surely someone, would have knowledge.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ricker H Jones

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2012, 11:44:55 AM »

I just received the following message from Joe C that I will pass along:
" Malcom said "Do we have any direct evidence apart from the fact Amelia Earhart once mentioned her freckles at a publicity shoot that she was carrying freckle cream? (It wasn't a publicity shoot; it was a ticker tape parade for the Friendship flight.) Well, I was digging around my files and all I could find was this poor lonely photo of AE having her hair cut with a cosmetic jar at her side. Too bad the jar looks to be milk glass! Oh well. I guess that means AE only preferred milk glass cosmetic jars and wouldn't have used any other kind. Back to the drawing board....hehe :)"
 
Logged

Randy Conrad

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 308
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #111 on: August 14, 2012, 03:54:49 PM »

If I may-----In Amelia's personal effects in the states, at her home, was there a bottle of Freckle cream? Granted, all the principles of this mystery are now watching from above, but surely someone, would have knowledge.

In reference to Tom Swearengen's comment...I personally have been looking for many weeks. Now, if Ric may help me out on this matter, but I do believe that Joe indeed had stumbled upon a jar of freckle cream in Atchinson during the Amelia Earhart Festival last year. It was milk-glass. I have stumbled upon a box and a small vile milk glass jar of freckle cream as indicated in the pictures I posted. Anyway, as far as checking her birthplace or hometown that is something I haven't done yet personally...but I have searched several antique stores to the south of Atchinson in Topeka. That is where the box originally came from. So, we must say that this stuff was being sold in Kansas.
 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 04:05:33 PM by Randy Conrad »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #112 on: August 14, 2012, 06:40:22 PM »

You are forgiven, but what is your argument? 
• Are you arguing that there is, as yet, no conclusive proof that Earhart died on Nikumaroro?  If so, with whom are you arguing? 
• Are you arguing that, with sufficient creative speculation, each piece of circumstantial evidence found so far may all be dismissed?  If so - again - with whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that we should not mistake possible clues for established evidence?  With whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify further investigation and testing?  If so, then you are welcome to earmark your contributions to TIGHAR for use on one of our other projects.
• Do you have an hypothesis about what happened to Earhart that you can support with better clues and evidence? If so, let's hear it.

Thank you for your forgiveness Ric.

But I also humbly suggest that as you are the one that has been proposing that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro for some considerable time, and has also organised expeditions to the island on a number of occasions to demonstrate that that hypothesis is correct then it is up to you, not I, to prove that your hypothesis is the answer.

I am simply using my archaeological training to evaluate whether the oft cited artifacts have secure  Earhartian provenance. So far, and as far as I am aware, none of them have been demonstrated to have this provenance - something which is crucial to their hypothesized fit in the puzzle. On the broader issue of Earhart and Noonan's fate I have no preferred option simply because to date none have been shown to be superior to another - bar of course the abducted by aliens option  ;D . If Nauticos turns up a wreck or the East New Britain search does the same then that will show that one of the alternate hypotheses is the correct one, and that will close the matter.

Of course in the mean time people may speculate to their heart's content and it is all good fun but in the end it is for TIGHAR not I to demonstrate that their Nikumaroro hypothesis is the answer. Now it may well be that on the last trip you found off the reef evidence of the Electra and we await the DC program with interest, but if that is not the case then what is the next step?
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2012, 07:15:16 PM »


As to myself and perhaps Ric and some others here and there, we have a strong 'pointer' in things-found like that, with others - and considering all observable circumstances, etc.  Think of that - we are in stark agreement with Malcolm, actually - we know that had AE even owned a jar like that it would still not be proof that we found hers... but what a co-inky-dink, me thinks, that one turned up down there... it is an interesting thing, isn't it?  I'd never heard of one before all this.

LTM -

Pointers as such are good, but if they are offer only a coincidental relationship rather than actual evidence then, unfortunately, they are valueless. In prehistoric archaeology whose methodology offers the closest parallel with the Earhart search because there is at present no clear indication outside of rather vague coincidental artifacts that Nikumaroro was indeed where Earhart and Noonan finished up things are rarely clear cut. It is a foolish archaeologist who claims something is definite based solely on the often fragmentary and incomplete evidence that exists outside of verifiable historical data.

Possible is a much used term because certainly only invites embarrassment. Also as in the case of the freckle cream jar, even if the last trip found the wreck off the reef, this does not actually prove that the coincidental artifacts are related to Earhart or Noonan - they still retain their coincidental association until evidence is located which connects them to the aviators. That is the problem - all the artifacts from the hypothetical wreck to the smallest coincidental artifact each are subject to their own individual history, not to the imperatives of an overarching hypothesis.     
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2012, 09:06:04 PM »

"The nay-case has often been at least as 'contrived' as the pro-case is accused of being in my experience here."

Bingo.  Often quite a bit more so, actually, which is my basic problem with a lot of the naysayers on here.  Skepticism for its own sake is not objectivity...it is another, and more insidious, form of bias.  I do like, however, when someone comes up with a new factoid or alternate theory that merits further thought.

On that line, there IS an interesting counter-theory developing that the castaway dates from further back than AE...certainly Gallagher thought the remains had been there longer than three.  Once again, evidence is not proof, and evidence so far is scant, but that doesn't mean we can't consider it and weigh it with a truly open mind.  If that evidence accumulates higher than the evidence for AE, I'm certainly swayable to that point of view...and it'd be a fascinating exercise to try and puzzle out who that person might have been.  But poking holes for its own sake or explaining away evidence with even more implausible scenarios doesn't really cut it for me.
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2012, 09:37:27 PM »

It is true that people have different levels of "proof".
We have thousands who saw planes fly into the world trade center, survivors, news crews, it's on video, yet some people still claim no planes hit.
You can't please everybody nor should that be a goal.
BUT... you can make a stronger case for the majority of rational people with cumulative circumstantial evidence.
And short of a found plane, that is all we are going to get, cumulative circumstantial evidence.
In the court of law, men have been put to death with enough of it.
In the case of the jar, it goes from very intriquing to zero weight
if this jar cannot be dated.
The date is a starting point. Without a date that fits, such as a catalog or ad or evidence of a production date around 1936-1937, then it should not be considered relevant at all.
The police do this with every crime scene. They sort out the relevant artifacts from random debris.
Without a date, there is no way to tell the difference and sort it.
So far, I haven't seen evidence of a relevant date. Not one advertisement or production log listing this Jar as being made around 1937.
In fact everything I have found shows the opposite, that in 1937 it should be milk glass. Previous posters on this thread have given advertisements for Dr.Berrys in 1936. It was milk glass as well.
You can't just say here is this jar, and it looks like a jar that once held freckle cream "around" the first half of the 20th century.
That is concerning, if in fact there has been considerable man hours spent searching for this information.
This is not searching for Noahs ark. There are Hazel Atlas catalogs, now most exist in libraries, I have found them in libraries at Santa Barbara, Ball State U, and the University of West Virginia. Records do exist. And some catalogs are in the hands of private researchers and museums.
In fact we know Mr.Joe C has found some Hazel Atlas records as he gives a number to this jar. That did not come from an advertisement.
We have a product identification number but in all the research in the last two years Tighar cannot determine a production date? I also haven't seen a makers mark photo, I haven't seen a catalog photo showing this bottle, I haven't seen really anything of the methadology or research that has been completed on one of the few "hard" artifacts Tighar has.
Why?
Therefore it is understandable that a scientist would be very skeptical, as would anyone without an agenda and with open logical mind.

Because even if you can prove AE used freckle cream, and you can show a freckle cream company used this style jar, it becomes irrelevant if the records show this style jar in clear glass was made during 1915-1920 for instance.
The date is everything. Then you can proceed to the ointments that used the jar during those dates. Then we can speculate if AE used it. That last link will likely never be proven of course.
But you have to start with a dated clear glass record. That would start making this jar "possibly" a relevant artifact. If You date it to 1930-1940, and we know of several facial creams and freckle creams that used it, then it's evidential value becomes higher than junk.
Without a date, or with a proven manufacture date of 1910 to 1920, it's just junk glass.
And really, just my opinion, there should have been no press release on this artifact until it was dated.
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2012, 06:30:52 AM »

Whatever this piece of glass is it's not junk, but a fine mystery of true Agatha Christie calibre. Let us see mes amis .... as far as I am aware there are two possible known identities for our unfortunate castaway, either a survivor from Amelia's flight, or one of the eight lost seamen from the Norwich City (11 were lost, but three bodies found and buried ... I am hypothesising for a moment that one of the remaining eight could have been washed further down the coast, survived and remained after the rest of the crew had been evacuated, ending his days at the seven site - long shot I know, but could happen). As far as we know, the last people to grace the shores of this island before the Norwich City was wrecked, packed their bags and left in the late 19th century. This means that either a stranded Norwich City seaman, Amelia, Fred, one of the Brits, resettled islanders, US coasties, or a TIGHAR archaeologist left the jar there. The earliest of these landed in 1929. So mes amis, if the jar is pre WWI as the posts above suggest ... it doesn't make sense for any of these visitors to have brought it ashore. If you're right about the age of the jar, it's too old for all of them ... so why is it there? A ha ... solve that one mythbusters. No? Okay, here's a feeble attempt .... Since the Norwich City was commissioned in 1911, it is conceivable that it may have picked up a clear, early 20th century American jar of whatever on one of its early voyages. Once the original contents were consumed, the jar could have remained on the ship for many years, being used for a number of other things by the seamen on board. If our unfortunate castaway was a Norwich City seaman (and I hope it wasn't, I'm gunning for Ric and Amelia), this would explain the presence of an early 20th century clear glass jar at the seven site. Of course another option is that the Norwich City brought it to the island, Amelia found it and used it as a survival implement of some sort (I like that one - that's going to be my favourite until proven otherwise).    :)
Raf
 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 08:24:37 AM by Rafael Krasnodebski »
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2012, 07:01:24 AM »

Of course an alternative hypothesis is that Amelia had a 20 gallon drum of Dr. Berry's gunk in her garage and periodically re-filled her mom's favourite cosmetic jar with it for every flight.  :) The point of my last post was that if the jar really does date back to the first decade of the 20th century, it's too old for all the known vistors to the island, not just Amelia. The dating of the jar is still important, but not critical to proving or disproving its connection to Amelia.
Raf
 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 07:03:34 AM by Rafael Krasnodebski »
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2012, 07:25:59 AM »

Raf,

yes but no, something old can come to the island at a later date if it has been picked up as usable (as cosmetics or water boiling) it can only suggest that it has a starting point of production and availability.

Indeed it can. My post was perhaps a little over-verbose. What I meant was that if the thing is proven to be older than Ms. Earhart's unfortunate demise there are thousands of ways it can be connected to her, no matter how old it is. Only if we can date it as being manufactured after her demise, can we categorically say it wasn't hers. From all the research posted above, we know it pre-dates her disappearance. Some of the folks on this thread say it it is "unlikely" she would have brought it along as it was too old. My point was that it was too old for any of the known visitors .. but it still happened .. so it must be 'likely". Clear as mud?
Raf
 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 07:45:04 AM by Rafael Krasnodebski »
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2012, 08:51:24 AM »

Of course an alternative hypothesis is that Amelia had a 20 gallon drum of Dr. Berry's gunk in her garage and periodically re-filled her mom's favourite cosmetic jar with it for every flight.  :) The point of my last post was that if the jar really does date back to the first decade of the 20th century, it's too old for all the known vistors to the island, not just Amelia. The dating of the jar is still important, but not critical to proving or disproving its connection to Amelia.

I couldn't disagree more. What you are doing by dismissing an early date is making the evidence Fit your hypothesis in some highly improbably manners.
You state if it's 1905 then it couldn't have come from any of the known or probable castaways, but that a 1905 manufacture date is not critical to proving a connection to AE. That makes no sense. ???

If the jar is 1905, or pre WW1, it absolutely breaks a link to AE.
She wasn't carrying a 30 year old jar of facial cream. Does your wife have a 30 year old bottle in her purse. No.
If that jar was made more than 10 years before her flight, or likewise was made 1 year after her flight, there is near zero probability it is AE's.
Period.

Now how it got there if not AE, that is another story entirely, and one that is outside the bounds of TIGHARS theory, it could have been on the NC and salvaged by an Islander in later years, it could have washed ashore from an unknown wreck we don't even know about.
But that is not what we are doing here.
We are proving a link to AE right? And if the date is too early, there is no link. How much more critical do you need? The date is everything and to suggest otherwise, and say a pre WWI date doesn't matter is slightly absurd.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 39   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP