Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 39   Go Down

Author Topic: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream  (Read 407626 times)

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #270 on: September 27, 2012, 05:06:13 PM »

By way of clarification, I forgot to add a few more details. 

The first phase of this new round began in July of 2012 to test for whether any surface mercury might be measured on the surface of the jar.  The most recent phase of testing, this month, tested the composition of the glass itself.  The final phase, ongoing, will be the controls I mentioned earlier. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #271 on: September 27, 2012, 06:15:41 PM »

Hi Alan,
I've gone through my files, digging through emails that are now nearly 2 years old. My research with The National Druggist for the particular ad showing Hazel #1995 comprised 1918 only. In reviewing my work, I see now the angle I was pursuing was to review ALL National Druggist ads I could find for Dr. C.H. Berry Freckle Ointment, not Hazel Atlas specifically. This particular ad, 1918, is the same one you found. Your list of Hazel Atlas ads that you have brought out today is far larger. I did not locate the website you found organizing them as they did, for as many years as they did. For this particular publication and this particular ad, you've exceeded the depth I was able to reach, and I thank you.

When we speak of the work "I" did on the EPAC, you must understand also that my work is only one link in a chain of unseen but considerable expertise and service by numerous people who constitute the EPAC. We evaluate all of it, but we know that we cannot see, find, or evaluate everything.  But it's a lot of data we evaluate, and not by any means for just this one thing.  I have literally thousands of messages from EPAC over the past 2 years.  I say this not to overwhelm but to give a sense of just how much research volume we have to sort when we go back and research these questions. 

Also, I will say as an aside that I never imagined how much more unwieldy it is to work with this format of messaging via Forum than it is for just simple, straightforward e-mail.  This is not the fault of ourselves or our moderators but of the technology itself.  You guys have a great deal more patience than I ever imagined!

I agree with - and concede to - your statements about the different scenarios for what the ads meant when they omitted showing Hazel 1995.  Your interpretation is well-considered.

We should be able to make a final determination of whether the glass from the jar is opal, flint, amber, or other. I have hints of the answer but won't tip my hand yet until the EPAC can evaluate. Those results could affect how the Hazel ads you found are interpreted.

Also, bear in mind, that when we speak of a "switch" from flint to opal, or opal to clear, we may not have all the facts.  Was it an irrevocable switch?  Could switches ever be reversed back?  What are the reasons?  The last thing I want is to be coy here, but we are, as you say, rehearsing these scenarios.

Let me add that we're not at this point dismissing any possibilities. When the report comes, however, it must, I think, suggest probabilities, to the best that we've been able to interpret them.

By the way, since we're both collecting ads in pursuit of the identity of 2-9-s-1, I thought you might enjoy one of the most interesting ones I've found (attached). 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #272 on: September 27, 2012, 08:08:59 PM »

Hi Joe -

Um, please forgive me as I am the least scientific guy on this forum.  I find it difficult to keep up with all this stuff about the artifacts.  I'm trying to simply this whole jar thing.

So, once you have all the results of your tests, what will you have accomplished?  i.e. - will you be able to state definitively that Earhart was or was not on Gardner?  Or is your exercise merely to determine if the jar was possibly owned by Earhart?

Or, I guess, can you list the possible scenarios that may have occurred - depending on the results of your testing?











Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #273 on: September 27, 2012, 09:15:14 PM »

Now there's the type of question a new Forum member likes.  None of this "Hello, how are you" stuff.  Just a good, straightforward "will you be able to state definitively that Earhart was or was not on Gardner."

Amelia Earhart herself was probably never asked such a tough question, but I'll try to answer it as straightly as I can.  I don't think either of the scenarios you list adequately describes the exercise.  We hope merely to advance understanding of this artifact, in relation to itself and its context with other artifacts, seeking only to explain. We hope for a result you will consider favorable to the Niku Hypothesis, but we can't mandate that you - or we, or I for that matter - will. I personally see nothing wrong with asking the question, was this Earhart's?  But I don't expect that kind of definition, and Tom King has stated why that type of definition isn't always the end goal:
---------
"...There are still all those little bits and pieces. And whether or not we ever “prove” the hypothesis to the satisfaction of every critic, it remains a fact that science is every bit as much about the collection, analysis, and application of “little bits and pieces” as it is about finding the big, obvious, indisputable and uncontroversial piece of data (like an airplane) that in one great flash proves the case.

Archaeological and historical research are applications of science that most particularly depend on the collection and interpretation of little bits and pieces -- whether they're little bits and pieces of hominid bone and crude tools in east Africa or little pieces of jars, bottles, and cosmetics from the Seven Site on Nikumaroro..."
----------------
For Tom's full post from April 16, 2012, see this link:
http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2012/04/scientific-evidence-and-search-75.html

He says it far better than I can.  I have certain philosophical thoughts I can share at some point for why I think this matters, but I'll save that for another time.

By the way, the magnitude of your question flatters me beyond words. You're far too kind.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #274 on: September 28, 2012, 05:11:09 AM »

Thank you Joe.

Say, as an aside - you're doing this part time - right?  Your main job is a politician?   ;) ;D :D ;D
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #275 on: September 28, 2012, 09:56:47 AM »

By way of clarification, I forgot to add a few more details. 
The first phase of this new round began in July of 2012 to test for whether any surface mercury might be measured on the surface of the jar.  The most recent phase of testing, this month, tested the composition of the glass itself.  The final phase, ongoing, will be the controls I mentioned earlier. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Joe, you and EPAC has had this jar for two years and yet the first round of chemical testing began in July 2012 correct? Isn't it true that in those first two years there were no scientific testing? In fact the only research was to skim ads in old Sears catalogs and googling other glass publications and/or Ebay trying to find a jar that looked similar, and researching basic Hazel Atlas company information? In those two years you admit you found a copy of the National Druggist Publication showing solid proof this style of jar was offered in White ONLY by 1918. Is that not correct? Other copies of the same publication indicates that white was the only color offered after 1918.
It is not totally conclusive evidence, but it is strong evidence that by the time of  Earharts flight, 1937, any bottles of this style jar would have probably been in white.
It is also true that you admit that most other style mid 1930's ointment jars you have found in your research are white. You have seen hundreds of mid 1930's ointment jars and they have been overwhelmingly white in color, correct? White was the popular color in the 1930's, and used almost exclusively in ointment jars, correct?
Therefore a clear ointment jar(like our artifact jar) was much less likely to have being made in the 1930's.
So why was that contradictory evidence you found, that did NOT support the Tighar theory, witheld? It was withheld from the media, general public, and Tighar members themselves. It is not as if you found several additional years when this jar was offered in clear. By your admission you had, and have no idea what DECADE this jar was made based on any publication in your possession, except that it was likely NOT mid 1930's based on advertisements from that period, and actual jars you viewed.

Yet despite all the evidence you had in your possession, arguing against a mid 1930's date, by the time of the early 2012 media blitz, this jar was called a 1930's jar by Tighar.

What is the point in EPAC if it is not to report the truth BEFORE the media is alerted? Is any one person responsible? "I just do my part, EPAC does their part, Tighar does their part".
It sounds to me this is an attempt to limit liability. If there is a question about an artifact's age and relevance, like the one being asked, the researcher can point to another person, or point at the media themselves!

The media did not invent the term "1930's jar", nor did they invent the term "Dr.Berrys Freckle cream", nor did the media go on every news outlet that would listen and proclaim that this jar fits what Amelia Earhart might have carried considering she had freckles.
The media had no idea of your or Epac's research, or lack thereof, they accepted the word of Tighar that this was a mid 1930's jar. Now if we would like to review Ric talking on soundbites about this mid 1930's jar, and how Amelia had freckles, I can provide that. I do not feel it necessary, as everyone heard the same thing. It went global, or viral as they say. Tighar called this a 1930's jar. Period. Long before Epac or yourself could prove that. True or not?

The reality is that you had no clue this was a 1930's cream jar, and TO THIS DAY do not know. In fact every clue you have, including the ND publications point to this jar being much older than the 1930's.
Is that true or not?


While I look forward to even more research, isn't it the truth this jar was promoted by Tighar, with advice from EPAC, as being something it was not?
Which is confirmed by your recent statement to Alan Harris.

I agree with - and concede to - your statements about the different scenarios for what the ads meant when they omitted showing Hazel 1995.  Your interpretation is well-considered.


So in closing on the issue of the media campaign conducted by Tighar, I find it pseudoscience to put it mildly and irresponsible is closer to the truth. This is history we are dealing with. The argument that it was done to keep public interest, before the public interest "wanes" you said, is not how a historical society should record history.History both oral and written should only be altered after the most careful eye and detail has been applied, and even then marked with words of caution unless multiple correlations are found to substantiate the claims.
History is not to be changed to fit a personal theory, and it certainly should not be changed with any variable being public interest and donations.
Yet on one hand you admit this jar's relevance was released too early, which is obvious, on the other you said EPAC and Tighar was being responsible in this release and content.
You cannot have it both ways. There was no fine line being walked here.
The information about this jar was released for one reason and one reason only, public "interest", and it was not just interest Tighar wanted from the Public. Read that how you will. It is the truth.

There is an ethical standard that must be applied, and if all the research you have by January 2012 did not substantiate, and in fact tends to disprove the connection to AE by dating, then that should have ALSO be presented to the media and not just in fine type at the end of a long memo to a producer.
To be safe, and avoid distorting the historical record, perhaps it should not have been released at all simply to generate publicity.

 Tighar is a historical society, not a UFO watchgroup. It has a responsibility to care for history, not create it, and certainly extreme caution has to be considered when commenting and shaping public opinion as possible new historical artifacts are unearthed, documents found, research performed. There can be no role in altering reseach, or in this case omitting known research just to fit a certain theory or bias for the sake of quote "keeing the public interested".
Meaning in semantics, keeping the public interested in donating.


You mention in one note that there must be a control on the lab work to avoid the appearance of "haphazard" work.
I strongly agree!!
I think the history of this glass jar examination shows the very Haphazardness you speak of. What is told to the Tighar members varies day to day. We hear it second hand. We hear it from facebook pages. We hear Joe is examining the jar. No, correction a friend of Joes is examining the Jar. No, correction, some guy watching the discovery channel offered his services. No, correction we have hired another lab to do testing. Per Ric Gillespie at first there is no residue to test( see the start of this thread) for mercury, now we find another chemist that will indeed find mercury after 75 years laying exposed on an open atoll, exposed to reef bleaching elements, UV and Gamma Radiation, Typhoons, and an unknown amount of Water dilution...on and on.

When those results are questioned, and more importantly the jar research history continues to show it to be older than mid 1930's, based on its clear color,  yet ANOTHER laboratory group has been hired for the purpose to determine the correct color. Two years after it was found, and right when this jar was taking heat for being too old based on it's color in comes another chemist who will claim in your words, "it is neither clear, nor white"

That should cover all the bases!

This being a non profit historical society, in care of finding and documenting history, I find this ease of media announcements alarming. Glass artifacts were shown for publicity BEFORE any testing done with actual testing protocols. Now that they are starting to be conducted it appears to be amateurish and somewhat clandestine for purposes unknown. Some of this analysis is volunteer apparently, some professional and paid, and all of this latest research seems in direct response to quiet skeptics, not for the goal of historical accuracy. Otherwise why wait two years to begin?  It almost seems like the pattern here is to release an artifact to the media, with Provenance unknown, date unknown, relevance to the Earhart case unknown. Just to Get "public interest". Then worry about finding a lab or scientist with a PHD behind their name to back the claims afterwards if necessary.In this case done only after several people object and provide documentation that contradicts the published original announcement. In two years no tests were run, I cannot emphasize that enough. Yet tighar, against it's own evidence, made darn sure the associated press thought a mid 30's cosmetic jar was found. Possibly containing freckle cream.

In the end run, I feel it only hurts Tighar's reputation no matter the outcome of subsequent testing, how this artifact was handled start to finish.  It should be done with caution and by professional unbiased scientists in a timely manner, with a protocol defined in testing. Perhaps a politician feels differently, maybe not.( In edit, no I am not singling out Joe, I do not know his true role. It's been explained differently at different times. I didn't know of the existance of this EPAC, and I am sure I am not alone. But if there was an advisory group you were part of, and you had evidence this artifact was not 1930's, I would hope you shared that information with Ric and other researchers before the announcements were made on the major media outlets. Who actually made the call to say this was a 1930's jar, I do not know. Therefore I assign no blame or responsibility to Joe.) The responsibility ultimately lays with Tighar the organization to accurately describe recovered artifacts. It just has become increasingly hard to determine who is "calling the shots" so to speak, when it comes to media relations. If Ric wants to claim responsibility for the media release, I would ask why do it at all if Joe's evidence pointed to an earlier date?
Who exactly came up with the term "mid 1930s" is the big question. I know the why. In any event it was wrong to do without any documentation or testing. I'll leave it at that. I am glad some testing has finally begun at last.

I do wish Good luck with the new and improved elemental tests to prove the glass is not clear after all. It just looks that way. Black is white and white is black, into the looking glass we go.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 01:05:53 PM by dave burrell »
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 #276 on: September 28, 2012, 10:27:52 AM »

Black is white and white is black, into the looking glass we go.

Dave, don't pick on Joe. I'm the guy you hate and, unfortunately, I don't have time right now to answer your ridiculous accusations. 
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #277 on: September 28, 2012, 01:39:48 PM »

Joe, you and EPAC has had this jar for two years and yet the first round of chemical testing began in July 2012 correct?
No, allow me to enlighten.  The jar went through at least 2 prior rounds of testing as I recall.  The first was for lithic edge wear analysis, in January 2011. Dr. Geoffrey Cunnar, a scientist with knowledge of lithic edge wear, did the first round.  The second was at Winterthur Labs in August 2011, for an evaluation of the gasket-like thread found nearby, and for an analysis of visible residuum on the jar itself.  As I stated, we are not NASA, the CIA or even a general purpose chemistry lab.  As of a few months ago, we did not even have a chemist on staff.  We're not an academy or a university either.  Most of the work is done by volunteers who care. A small amount is contracted, but since services often cost money, I don't think this should be surprising.  I fail to understand the obsession with how long this takes.  Are you saying we withheld information too long, and then in the very next sentence we don't wait long enough?  I'm thoroughly confused. 

Isn't it true that in those first two years there were no scientific testing?
See above.  I fail to see why the answer matters, however.  What if we had waited?  Just as an example, it took 58 years or so for the discovery of the bones to be re-discovered by a TIGHAR researcher in archives.  It's been 75 years since Earhart's disappearance.  You're surprised it's taking a long time?

In fact the only research was to skim ads in old Sears catalogs and googling other glass publications and/or Ebay trying to find a jar that looked similar, and researching basic Hazel Atlas company information? In those two years you admit you found but one copy of the National Druggist Publication showing solid proof this style of jar was offered in White in 1918 is that not correct? 

I and we have researched a lot more than this in 2 years.  The emails on EPAC alone on this jar would clog your inbox.  I have a disk full of files. Some of them are dead ends. Some of them are positively fascinating, and enlightening.  It's not classified, but it would be a lot of work sharing this all at once, and even if we did share it all at once, how would this satisfy your requirement?  We work together, accept our frailties, rejoice in our collective strengths, and move on.  Why does this even need stating?


Why was that contradictory evidence you found, that did NOT support the Tighar theory, witheld? It was withheld from the media, general public, and Tighar members themselves.
I don't recall sending you our personal emails. Did you read them?  I've already stated that the media didn't get this perfectly correct the first time. I'm not aware any information was withheld.  The media is working on it.  So are we.  We live in a society with a free press.  This allows them to be excellent, or as the case may be and budgets allow, not so excellent at all times. I assume their good intentions.  So should you.  It's one thing to make an unsupported allegation about data. It's quite another to make an unsupported allegation about people.


It is not as if you found several additional years when this jar was offered in clear. By your admission you had, and have no idea what DECADE this jar was made based on any publicatioin in your possession.
Neither I nor anyone else here ever made any representation to the media or anyone else regarding certainty about the dating of the jar.  Our research does not rule out a 1930s association. Does that imply we know more than we actually do? 


Yet despite all the evidence you had in your possession, by the time of the early 2012 media blitz, this jar was called a 1930's jar by Tighar.
"We think it MAY have been from the 1930s," may have been said somewhere, by someone at some time.  People interpret things all the time. We're only human, after all. I highly, highly doubt that anyone with an I.Q. above 70 would have said "it's a 1930s jar."  This is an allegation you have made that you must support.


What is the point in EPAC if it is not to report the truth BEFORE the media is alerted? Is any one person responsible? "I just do my part, EPAC does their part, Tighar does their part".
The truth?  The truth?  What is the truth?  I once wrote "the truth is" in a paper in college.  I think the grade received was C-, and I was publicly called out for that in the class.  And what I said was "truthful" was probably a pretty vanilla statement.  We don't have a monopoly on truth.  Things are debatable.  It's debatable what I had for dinner 3 nights ago.  We're seeking to understand, so far as we're led to be able to understand, what became of Amelia Earhart on July 2, 1937 and afterward.  Do you really think we're ever going to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" on this event?  The standard you set is so high as to be unbelievable. This does not mean we have one particle of reckless disregard for truth and truthful things. But this is not your point, anyway.  Your point is we lied or misled.  I don't always know what's true, but I know the allegation in that previous sentence is untrue.


It sounds to me this is an attempt to limit liability. If there is a question about an artifact's age and relevance, like the one being asked, the researcher can point to another person, or point at the media themselves!
Were I to take credit for all the research here, I would be properly guilty of the untruthfulness you cite, would I not?  Nor would this be fair to all those who have helped me, and who have far surpassed my efforts in this regard.


The media did not invent the term "1930's jar", nor did they invent the term "Dr.Berrys Freckle cream", nor did the media go on every news outlet that would listen and proclaim that this jar fits what Amelia Earhart might have carried considering she had freckles.

If you're going to quote Ric, you ought to cite properly.  Link to an article, a video, what have you.  You are surprised at the way the media ran with the story.  I initially was also, never having been given this kind of inside look at how stories rise and propagate (and I'm a journalism M.A!)  So I'll grant I can understand how you may have assumed that we misled them, but your assumption is inaccurate.  And, truth to tell, their job in reporting this was better than might have been expected, given all of the complexities and twists involved.


The media had no idea of your or Epac's research, or lack thereof, they accepted the word of Tighar that this was a mid 1930's jar.
I suggest you look up all the definitions of the word "media."  The media mediates, some more than others.  It may be a 1930s jar; the evidence I'm looking at is more suggestive of that idea than what you've probably seen. Again, TIGHAR never said it definitively was, not ever, and still probably will not ever.  If you want to argue about how it "cannot possibly" be from the 1930s, that it "is" definitely from World War I or prior, that's another argument entirely.  I assume that's next.  We have evidence that would dispute that logic. I won't be presenting that until I'm done with all of the research.


Now if we would like to review Ric talking on soundbites about this mid 1930's jar, and how Amelia had freckles, I can provide that. I do not feel it necessary, as everyone heard the same thing. It went global, or viral as they say. Tighar called this a 1930's jar. Period. Long before Epac or yourself could prove that. True or not?
I've been pretty attentive to the media stories, probably more attentive than I even should.  I have noticed no such exaggeration coming from us.  If you have such evidence, it's time you showed it.  Statements such as "Earhart is known to have been concerned about her freckles," are statements of demonstrable fact. 


The reality is that you had no clue this was a 1930's cream jar, and TO THIS DAY do not know.
Do you really believe I am so unintelligent as to make statements of fact I know can be disputed two seconds later?


In fact every clue you have, including the ND publications point to this jar being much older than the 1930's.
Is that true or not?[/b]
It absolutely COULD be. My EPAC emails may even have some paragraphs in which I myself took this position, for the sake of argument.  But, no, we also have a body of evidence that suggests it could also be later than the "not later than" the World War I date you have cited in earlier posts.  I'm putting that together, and it will take time. Would I like to be more thorough in that than the media have had occasion to be?  Certainly.  And would I think that an even-handed approach, highlighting all the arguments, including the Forum's ought to be included?  Absolutely. 


While I look forward to even more research, isn't it the truth this jar was promoted by Tighar, with advice from EPAC, as being something it was not?
Which is confirmed by your recent statement to Alan Harris.
My quote to Alan Harris was to congratulate him on conducting more detailed research into the question of Hazel-Atlas advertisments for the publication and time frame in question than I had had time or initiative to do myself.  There are other areas of research in which I am sure he would grant me the same, as is the wont of fellow researchers.


So in closing on the issue of the media campaign conducted by Tighar, I find it pseudoscience to put it mildly and irresponsible is closer to the truth. This is history we are dealing with. The argument that it was done to keep public interest, before the public interest "wanes" you said, is not how a historical society should record history.
History both oral and written should only be altered after the most careful eye and detail has been applied, and even then marked with words of caution unless multiple correlations are found to substantiate the claims.
History is not to be changed to fit a personal theory, and it certainly should not be changed with any variable being public interest and donations.
Others could give better insight on the organization than myself, but I would say, from observation that we're not a historical society. We're a team of folks interested in responsible aircraft preservation, archaeology and research that has become involved in the most compelling instance of that subject we have found.  I find the historical accusation to be lacking.  History is not one person's idea of the truth.  History is what people write. It's a subject of debate, a work in progress.  I think it can take care of itself just fine without any help from TIGHAR.  I don't see the argument that we've duped history in the interest of public interest.  I just don't see it. (History, by the way, seems to have done a pretty even-handed job in reporting the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. I don't see them rushing to judgment in any sense of the word.)  You give us much more power than anyone really has.

Yet on one hand you admit this jar's relevance was released too early, which is obvious,
Again, false.  I think the timing was just about perfect.  I never said otherwise.  I said TIGHAR seeks a balance and generally strikes the correct balance.

on the other you said EPAC and Tighar was being responsible in this release and content.
Yes, TIGHAR was being responsible in this release and content. I cannot be more in agreement.




You mention in one note that there must be a control on the lab work to avoid the appearance of "haphazard" work.
I strongly agree!!
I think the history of this glass jar examination shows the very Haphazardness you speak of. What is told to the Tighar members varies day to day. We hear it second hand. We hear it from facebook pages. We hear Joe is examining the jar. No, correction a friend of Joes is examining the Jar. No, correction, some guy watching the discovery channel offered his services. No, correction we have hired another lab to do testing. Per Ric Gillespie at first there is no residue to test( see the start of this thread) for mercury, now we find another chemist that will indeed find mercury after 75 years laying exposed on an open atoll, exposed to reef bleaching elements, UV and Gamma Radiation, Typhoons, and an unknown amount of Water dilution...on and on.
You expected TIGHAR to make one final and unimpeachable announcement?  I suppose we could all disappear into a cubby for 20 years and then come tell you what we found?  That is an organizational model.  I just don't see how it works with the setup we have.  Nor, as far as I can tell, do any of my fellow members.  I'm not idealistic about this at all and don't know what good idealism would do.  It's like wishing for a bus to come at 8:30 when it's on an hourly schedule. 

This being a non profit historical society, I find this ease of media announcements on unproven theories, artifacts shown for publicity BEFORE testing done, the actual testing protocols, to be amateurish and to some clandestine for purposes unknown. Some of this analysis is volunteer apparently, some professional and paid, all at different times over a two year period in apparent response to questions on the jars age. It almost seems like the pattern here is to release an artifact to the media, with Provenance unknown, date unknown, relevance to the Earhart case unknown. Just to Get "public interest". Then worry about finding a lab or scientist with a PHD behind their name  to back the claims afterwards if necessary.That is not finding and documenting existing history.
I believe the scientific method, again, can be messy.  It's conducted by humans, with flaws and, don't forget, strengths. The timing of the lab work is purely based on how much we know and when we know it. We act upon what we know as soon as we know. I for one have not hesitated to test that which I knew to test, once I knew what could be tested.  I think the same could be said for anyone else here.

 
Perhaps a politician feels differently.
You are saying this without even the slightest knowledge of who I am.

Look, folks, I wanted to say a few things here, and I've said them.  I'm going to be taking the weekend away from emails or communication of any kind in order to run my 12th marathon.  I may need to step back from here for a while in order to have time to review the very great work that has been done on this piece by the team.  I think the work deserves an effort to pull it all together.  I thank those of you who've been supportive.  If you've not been supportive, I'm trying to understand your point of view, learn what I can, but challenge what I think to be not factually based.  Thank you all.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #278 on: September 28, 2012, 01:48:50 PM »

  We live in a society with a free press.  .......{snip}........ I assume their good intentions.  .....{snip}
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER

Let this be the only thread drift.......

Joe, a whole buncha years here working with the media.  Learning to use them and using them to my advantage.  Ya gotta keep this one fact in mind:  the media are a bunch of parasites on society.  Be very careful, how you present to the media. Don't ever assume their intentions.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #279 on: September 28, 2012, 02:13:18 PM »

Bill, thanks for the suggestion, but as one who spent years working to learn the craft and working with members of the press, I have to say, they're a fine group of people overall.  Only my opinion, of course.  This isn't about press griping, it's about ensuring we are all honest and fair with one another and toward each other.

Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #280 on: September 28, 2012, 02:17:31 PM »

Bill, thanks for the suggestion, but as one who spent years working to learn the craft and working with members of the press, I have to say, they're a fine group of people overall.  Only my opinion, of course.  This isn't about press griping, it's about ensuring we are all honest and fair with one another and toward each other.

Have some fun with your marathon.  But keep this in mind - now that you've advised us of the marathon, you have a responsibility to let us know how you did.   ;) ;D
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #281 on: September 28, 2012, 02:39:25 PM »

Quote
...as one who spent years working to learn the craft and working with members of the press, I have to say, they're a fine group of people overall.

OK, Bill, now I have to admit - Joe may be a politician after all...  ;)

Now that's funny.........

........and you may have killed this thread......... ;D :D ;D
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #282 on: September 28, 2012, 02:58:30 PM »

Joe I didnt say you personally made the announcement this was 1930's glass. So I am not implying you are stupid. But it was said, and implied. I will put a quote from Ric below.
You decide how this would read to the public.
I have never read one of your EPAC emails in the media where you state the artifact "absolutely could be older than 1930's"
That is my point. Those never made the NY times or Reuters.

History is what is agreed upon, by the mostest. :)
What was done is present a superficial review, very one sided, to the most people, that supports this being possibly Earhart related.

When a little counterpoint could have been added for accuracy, like saying "well it could also be from New Zealanders for sun burn cream"... so we have to be cautious, but testing continues...

There was no counterpoint or words to be cautious in these interviews.
When this is history and public perception we are dealing with.
There are now a million people that think a 1930's freckle cream jar was found.
Which is exactly what was wanted. So let's not pretend differently.
This had nothing to do with presenting historical evidence in the right context.
But whatever, it's not my organization, I wouldn't have felt comfortable making these kinds of statements, others feel it's great.
That is where I am coming from.

Ric Gillespie stated-
“This is one of several bottles that we’ve identified from the castaway campsite that seem to be and, in some cases, are very definitely personal care products that were marketed exclusively to women in the United States in the 1930s.”


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/246339/amelia-earhart-jar-of-freckle-cream-could-be-latest-clue-to-solving-mystery/#wBJYYG3bvqGGXLPR.99
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #283 on: September 28, 2012, 03:28:41 PM »

I ought to be on the road, but I'll respond once more.  From what you're saying here in this latest, I think it might be fair to say you intend no harm in what you're saying, so let me say then...no hard feelings.  You are raising some important points that go deep and wide.  Obviously, I disagree with many things.  You should not assume that certain things weren't said by TIGHAR at the appropriate times.

You're looking forward to the additional research.  Glad to see you're interested.  Maybe this next round when all is said and done, you'll say, I didn't like how that came over the first time, but the second time they really got me thinking....

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Logged

Randy Conrad

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 308
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #284 on: September 28, 2012, 03:38:54 PM »

I just wanted to take a few moments and express my concern on recent pokings by certain individuals on this wonderful forum. This forum is to be used as per say a science lab, debate discussion, data collection, and anything else you can come up with. However, its intentions are not to bring down the work of those who have tiredlessly given their all to see puzzle pieces fall into place. I am highly motivated by the work that Ric, Joe, Tom, and the rest of this team has done in the past 20 years. As Joe has mentioned....its taken a long time to get where we are now!!!! As for those wondering about a test on milk glass...my girlfriend's 7 year old son and I did an experiment several weeks back on a similar milk glass jar with ointment cream in it. Sat it in a coffee can and got it as hot as I possibly could. It burned for quite some time like a candle, before it was quickly burned out by the oil. As for the glass...it blackened it, but did not discolor it. As a matter of fact, it didnt make the jar clear. However, if contents did exist in this jar, and it was on this island...it didnt last long! As for testing and research on this jar...alot of people have taken great effort in finding a similar jar...but no luck yet. However, like Joe and Ric, and many others...we are searching diligently as we speak. I just wanted to touch base with Ric, Tom, and Joe...that I still haven't gotten word back from the National Glass President who is overseer of the Duncan and Miller Glass Museum in Washington, PA. This is the town where Hazel-Atlas got its first start. Anyway, the lady in charge of the museum informed me that the pictures and information were sent in regards to the jar and this website was included to better inform him of things that have transpired in the past several years. She informed me that he was excited about getting into this. So hopefully willing, we will hear something from him in the coming days!!!!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 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