Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 39   Go Down

Author Topic: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream  (Read 425260 times)

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #405 on: November 02, 2012, 04:48:53 PM »

Off topic, but apparently even British soldiers were issued Insect Repellent in these little 2-ounce oval bottles post-war:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30025650
http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/250/media-250559/standard.jpg


Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #406 on: November 02, 2012, 08:34:54 PM »

In responding to this post, I would like very much to point out again that there is a difference between belief and knowledge.  Belief is not a blind act of faith (although it can be; acts of faith have been known to possess a high intrinsic worth) but is based, rather, on where the evidence appears to point.  Very often I find here a tendency to ascribe to the researcher a knowledge that is actually a belief based on facts.  If some certain knowledge cannot be ascribed to the researcher, the reverse claim is made that the researcher then has "proven" nothing. It may well be that the researcher in question has not in fact sought to prove anything, only to indicate remarkable coincidences that weave themselves into a larger cloth of evidence, but that is often said to be beside the point.  I would submit that the extent of most researchers' knowledge lies somewhere on a spectrum between knowledge and lack of it.  We would do well, I believe, if we would keep these things in mind.

Joe thank you for the database and your articles, and excellent time consuming research.
My own opinion is that neither the "freckle cream" jar or the "campagna bottom" is worthy of an association with Earhart.
Glad we cleared that up. You of course know that I think these things are shouting Earhart almost as loudly as she appears to have done in the post-loss radio signals TIGHAR has deemed "credible."

1. No clear jar of the freckle cream type has been located. We dont have one.
News flash: The jar isn't clear and never was.  I have the lab report showing it and will explain, as I've said, as soon as I can get a chance to say what the lab learned and how we interpreted it.  I cite this not as "evidence" that the jar was freckle cream indeed, but as evidence that there may be additional facts that you might not have observed while otherwise occupied disverifying. 

Alan Harris looks like he and others tried hard to find one.
We live in a very blase' age regarding history and historical inquiry.  We think that the past is transparent to us, that an internet search or a museum inquiry can clear up our questions.  Sometimes it can, but the past, even yesterday, is quite a foreign country.  Prior to the 1930s, especially with regard to bottles, glassware was used to destruction. During the Great Depression, according to Bill Lockhart, "less was made; less was sold; less was used." It should be little wonder that certain items are unobtainable or very difficult to obtain.

The evidence from the manuals he produced saying this jar was only available in Opal is good evidence.
Our bottle expert Bill Lockhart states this is not true.  A manual for any given year saying what style of glass was used was valid for that year, and maybe not even that long.  We can argue this if we wish, but when an expert says something this definitively, it usually means there are other experts who are also willing to take the same position.  It doesn't mean by definition they are right and you are wrong, but you would need first, I think it is only fair, to state how many glass catalogs in cold dim library stacks have you strained your eyes to read?

So even if it was Dr.Berrys it looks like Alan Harris and Dave Burrell posted it was older than the 1930's. So if she was carrying it then it was very old.
The concept, I will grant, sounds strange today, but back then people held on to things for much longer than today.  Again, remember the Lockhart Principle: Used to destruction, or unsold.

I have a hard time picking up items from the pre 1930's and assigning them weight as evidence.
Assigning weight as evidence is an individual endeavor.  Your freedom to think and assign these weights is what makes this discussion interesting and enjoyable.  I would defend your right to do this.

First it has to be the right decade, then proceed from there, the freckle cream for me just is not evidence at this point.
I can see this is a sticking point for you.  Bear in mind we still don't have the decade in hand.  We think it's the 1930s and I will reveal why later, but that's unlikely to settle it.

2.The campana balm at least appears to not have the same dating issues.
You're kind to say so, but you'll see from my paper that we have some ambiguities here, which I freely admit.

I can see from the research that this is "possibly" a womans lotion bottle. Mark Pierce found numerous advertisements in this thread showing Campana was NOT gender specific at all.
Quite possibly, we need a new terminology.  Gender-indicated?  Gender-prevalent?  Something to indicate that at most places and times a bottle with a woman on the label would have been used most often by a woman.  Canada, I know, at times had a different marketing plan.  And maybe the U.S. at odd times did as well.  But I've seen a lot of distortion of the evidence here.  And no one has taken me up on the need to listen to the radio broadcasts of First Nighter, heard by millions.  Radio was the PRIMARY vehicle of advertising for this product.  (I have an attachment from a period radio trade journal to back this claim, but it's too large to post.)

Plus, after looking at 3 different laboratory reports over a five year period, I still see no confirmation it is even campana balm. For years this looks like it was called the "lanolin" bottle. It may have been best to stick with that.
Here is how the scientist from the first lab, which initially did not find a close match to Campana, viewed the report from Dr. Mass and my Lotion bulletin, once he'd seen it:
"I took a more thorough look at your article, and I think in general I like the way you described the match.   You made it clear it was not a perfect match and so in that context, I might have said a “pretty good match”.  You said a “very good match” and that is probably ok though perhaps (from an old nitpicker’s point-of-view) “pretty good match” would have made the point too."
He agreed with me that it was not a perfect match, but I also asked him:
Since the bottles were, as I say in my report, separated by 75 years and thousands of miles, having distinct histories of wear and use, might the expectations for the quality of a spectral match need to be adjusted downward, in light of those circumstances?   

His answer: "Agreed."
 
I also asked him, When I say in my report, "A perfect match would not be expected," am I justified in supposing that?   His answer: "Yes."

One needs to understand that the chances of getting just the right bottle, with contents not perfectly preserved, but worn and degraded in nearly exactly the same way as the Niku bottle, are very small.  It's pretty remarkable that the FTIR graph showing a match to the Tragacanth, a rare but shared ingredient between the artifact and Campana, was obtained.

Starting with the first lab report in 2007 there was lanolin and seed oil identified.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/Bottle/NikuVanalysisbottle.html

Then it was sent to another lab, EAG labs, in 2011 for more research based on some smudges that Dr.Mass the first scientist did not deem important the first time around.  Clearly from Dr.Mass' report the first time she found the lanolin and worm residue as being most likely the only residue.
Dr. Mass was making no judgment of the brown remnant's value by not testing it.  The purpose of the original testing was materials characterization, NOT materials identification.  Identification at that point was still a very distant prospect.  TIGHAR wanted a general description of the characteristics of the remnants.  An exhaustive one probably did not seem necessary or financially prudent at the time.

This overall five year process is best summarized in your original Notion of a lotion article.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm
Picking apart the length of time the process took is like going back to the 1950s and criticizing the cars people drove for not having anti-lock brakes.  It took some time to develop these refinements.  So it is with all scientific research, so far as I am aware.

Lab two, Evans lab, tested actual campagna balm samples against the artifact. On pages 36-39 of the EAG report those graphs of the artifact don't match for Camapana. Despite the pronoucements of a consulting scientist, Greg George, the graphs don't lie.
You put far greater stock in your interpretation than in the scientists'.  The EAG scientists (Lab two) never received the artifact to compare.  They only received Dr. Mass' spectral measurements.  It was only when Dr. Mass had both bottles to compare that the full extent of the similarities revealed themselves.

We can speculate till the cows come home about contamination and degradation to try to make this artifact fit a campagna bottle.
The plain fact is the white residue found on the artifact does not match Campagna balm.
Again, one must understand, this isn't like pouring some hand lotion into a vending machine and 20 graphs come out all perfectly proclaiming the match.  It's taken a large amount of detective work to figure this out. 

However while Campana had Tragacanth gum by 1957 at least, FTIR cannot differentiate between gums. Dr. Mass said that in her third and final round of testing to try to confirm what the second lab produced.

Quote-
"Figure 7, shown below, reveals a favorable comparison between gum Arabic and the
reddish residue in the Kiribati bottle. However, FTIR is insufficient to distinguish
between different types of plant gums, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry is
necessary to definitively distinguish between gum tragacanth and gum Arabic." end quote
Let's look at the coincidences: 
1.) We have a bottle characterized in 2007 by a trained materials scientist as consistent with hand lotion.
2.) A bottle emerges in 2011, Campana Italian Balm. This was the most popular hand lotion of the 1930s.  Its quite unique base stamping matches the artifact.
3.) Chemical analysis shows three of the known Campana ingredients, Glycerine, Sorbitol and Tragacanth Gum can be detected on a known bottle of Campana Italian Balm.  The other known ingredients, Essential oils, Alcohol, Phenol, and Benzoic Acid were not detected, even though they were known to have once been in the actual bottle of Campana.  This should speak volumes about the likelihood of obtaining "matches" even when we know ahead of time what is going to match.
4.) The Niku bottle, having sat in the Niku sun, wind and rain for 70+ years underwent the same testing. Tragacanth Gum was matched, or perhaps it was Gum Arabic that was matched.   Either way, the ingredients here were matched between the artifact bottle, and the known Campana bottle.  You may argue, then, that the match was on the gum of a label (Gum Arabic), but I find this unlikely as my report of last week explains.  The label would need to have migrated to the inside of both bottles, and adhered to both insides as black and brown spots in exactly the same way.  It's particularly telling that Tragacanth, as the attachment shows, was an ingredient listed on the label of Italian Balm in a bottle stamped Copyright 1939.

Ester, as a by-product of the manufacturing process, was also matched on both bottles, as were other functional groups, such as oxalates, and OH (hydroxyl).

Understand, as well, that in order to obtain any kind of chemical match, visually similar components usually need to be compared.  In many of the comparisons you are seeing in the reports, white remnants were compared to brown, brown to blue, and so on.  These comparisons, again, were an unavoidable result of the fact that the initial lab (EAG) did not have both bottles in hand to test.

Or just give up on both these bottles completely. That would probably be wise in the big picture.
Now I know you must be pulling my leg!  It may not be possible to persuade you of other notions than what you have determined.  Of that, it may be "wise" to agree to disagree, but I at least think the questions implied in your statements are legitimate ones to be asked.  I'm taking a lot of time in answering them, but you also took a lot of time in composing your list of reservations.  Thanks for the opportunity to try to address the concerns.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #407 on: November 03, 2012, 12:56:03 AM »

"So ended our wonderful cruise amongst those wondrous reef-bound Pacific coral islands of green woods, cocoanut palms bracken covered stretches, all clothed just as nature made them, and marred only by the grim tragedies of those whose ships strayed shoreward." 

Papers Past, the Phoenix Group

Thanks for digging this up Bob/Woody. Cruises,both private and military, to and around Gardner is not laughable. It is a historical fact.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 11:38:57 AM by tom howard »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #408 on: November 03, 2012, 03:06:04 AM »

Joe thank you again for your time and effort. You do not have to reply to any doubters on the bottle evidence, yet you do.
I do not expect that you will convince everyone but you have certainly went above and beyond making yourself available.

I will not address every point you made, a lot of your last post I agree with, such as nothing matching perfectly, different experts disagreeing, and it was interesting hearing the behind the scenes conversations you had as you asked the scientists if it was a "pretty good match", or a "very good match"
It shows you are trying hard. I have been there, done that.

By now however, you know I feel you are on the wrong track on this particular evidence. I have a little experience deciding what is relevant and what is not in processing crime scenes. I have stated why I think the bottles are irrelevant, not just because Earharts fingerprints are not on them, but that they have other issues as well. Those I have already pointed out and will not completely rehash.

I do await your report on the 'Freckle cream' jar, and why it's not really a clear jar.
On the other issues on the dating of that artifact, I am not sure why you are even arguing it was only available in white during the 1930's if you are going to claim it white anyway. But I will await that report. The artifact sure looks clear to me, and has looked clear since Tighar asked everyone to try to find a clear jar that matched. Now that we cannot find a clear one, the artifact is not really clear? That should be an interesting report.

On the "Campana" artifact, I realize the lenght of time in processing doesn't exclude the item as evidence. I have processed years old crime scene evidence.
I concede it could be evidence as a hand lotion with lanolin. It is interesting that you mention that Dr.Mass was not doing material identification initially, just material characterization. So you just wanted to know sort of what it was, but not definitely what it was?
At what point did you or EPAC decide you needed Material Identification?
I believe you mentioned in one of your reports titled, "why Campana is important", that hand lotion was not gender specific enough. Campana you said was better for quote "visual persuasion" than regular hand lotion. Therefore, Campana took on a new focus after listening to the all nighter programs and the huge advertising. Isn't that picking a product that fits the hypothesis better and then starting material identification to prove it is Campana?

On the remaining laboratory issues, specifically for the "campana" bottom,
there are a couple of items not addressed in your above post, and it's the heart of the issue.
It does not matter if a scientist is testing different colored smudges. It really does not matter if they have both actual Campana and the artifact in the same lab at the same time.
What matters is the results, matching graph to graph. Campana versus Artifact.
Yes, both the real campana samples and the bottle showed some gum.
Yes, both the real campana samples and the bottle showed possible esters.
The problem again is that the graphs do not come close to matching for the esters. I can look at EAG labs spectrum 28-31 trying to match the white flakes graph and the real campana doesn't match.
Degradation and metal cap compounds might make the job of sorting harder, and the values weaker, but it is not going to change Campana to Lanolin unless you do some creative backflips. EAG labs tried, they added in metal cap oxidation, and still came up with a partial match that isn't really that partial. Of course, that is subjective. It was subjective to the scientists as well, or there would be no discussions of "pretty good match" or "very good match". The scientists know a match from a non match. The rest is just close or way off. Unlike Horeshoes and Hand grenades, this close, "pretty good" match doesn't cut it for me.

It is up to individuals following this case to believe or not, as you state.
Anyone can view spectrums 28-31 on the EAG lab report.
The results, for me, show widely diverging values, that has failed to match Campana to the white flakes on the artifact.

It is simply not good enough to match some of the ingredients. If an ingredient is found on the artifact that does not match Campana liquid or bottle, then it excludes Campana.

I hope you keep going with your studies, I do look forward to the clear jar becoming white or whatever the new evidence is, in your quest to clarify these old jars relevance to Earhart.
So, we do agree on some issues, and some concessions can be made. I can concede that the gum identification can be "pretty close", since most gums show the same fingerprint on FTIR. That is being fair. However, for me to believe this is Campana, there also has to be additional Gas Spectrum charts showing the white flakes match the known samples. That is because the FTIR ester match is so off. That is also fair. Also of course it would be great to locate a bottle of Campana balm that actually matches the artifact size. Only then,will you truely know if this is Campana balm.

Then everyone can decide what a bottle of Campana balm is worth as evidence Earhart landed on Gardner Island.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 12:09:11 PM by tom howard »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #409 on: November 03, 2012, 12:34:55 PM »

Then everyone can decide what a bottle of Campana balm is worth as evidence Earhart landed on Gardner Island.
Tom,
I see from your recounting of past history you are a retired lawman.  Thank you for your service and welcome to the Forum!  Agreeing to disagree on the Forum also means we're not disagreeable here.

We don't have many members of TIGHAR so far as I'm aware, who have dealt with the issue of legal matters and standards of evidence or proof from the perspective of the justice system.  However, these are concepts that have come up often on the Forum and EPAC.  Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, percent of confidence, and other such terms crop up all the time.

If this is a topic of interest to you, maybe we could start a new topic outside of Campana and Dr. Berry.

One question I might have would be, has this type of FTIR evidence ever come up at trial?  What were the standards of "closeness of match" that were required?  Were there different standards of this type of graphical evidence for civil and criminal or would they be the same?  If so, were you responsible for interpreting this evidence?  Earhart's fate is very different from a criminal trial, of course.   Your experience seems one that might lend itself to some larger philosophical questions of the Project, perhaps from a legal standpoint.  Is this a topic of interest?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

Randy Conrad

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #410 on: November 03, 2012, 05:35:12 PM »

In reference to the past few posts mentioned, I'm not well pleased to know that we as grown men would pausibly fight over matters such as glass jars and bottles. However, I've had the opportunity to sit directly across from a man (Joe) in D.C. and to tell you the truth, I fight him highly credible of his findings and I know he truly has put an effort into this project. As with Tom, I want you to remember that the supposedly white milk-glass jar does not fit into the box as some are led to believe. Thus, with the actual artifact jar does. I know this seems wild...but it is. Alot of us have pulled our hair and teeth out trying to figure out timelines and manufacturers. For me, I've scanned magazines from Womens Cosmopolitan to Saturday Evening Post trying to figure out how "big" this stuff was back in its time. Needless to say, the only thing I have come to the conclusion is that it was sold only in drug stores. I'm also onto a lead that it might have been distributed at the Worlds Fair. As you might have seen in my latest post that Dr. Berry never made the freckle cream to begin with. Anyway, gettin back to what I really want to say...Is this project will move forward. For those of us who have put alot of time and effort into this adventure...will continue to do so. We are up for suggestions and yes criticisms, but we will not throw in the towel that easily. Anyway, wanna tell Ric thanks for all you do, and for taking the brunt of all that you do. Thanks for making Tighar so special!!!
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #411 on: November 03, 2012, 06:18:40 PM »

I can't help you there Joe. I have never testified a chemical is of a certain type in a courtroom. You perhaps inferred a lot about my background that is not correct.
I can't run or calibrate a spectrometer or interferometer either. That was handled by the state lab boys. Now, I did learn to read a graph in middle school, and it's just my personal opinion your FTIR results don't come close to meeting any reasonable burden of proof. But that opinion is as a layman. I am no chemist or analyst. Also, most of my cases involving spectroscopic techniques were drug cases, and there was rarely a court challenge on those deals.You got a hard job, and would just keep working on it if you really believe this jar held Campana balm. I do not for reasons stated previously, I'll leave it at that. PM if you want to talk cop to cop or want some advice on which path to follow. I'll try! Haha.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #412 on: November 03, 2012, 06:43:19 PM »

Cruises,both private and military, to and around Gardner is not laughable. It is a historical fact.

I saw no "advertisements for pleasure cruises" as you alleged. There is one newspaper article describing a cruise (not cruises) around the Phoenix Group in 1924.  There was no mention of what ship it was or why it went to the Phoenix Group. The article says that the islands are "seldom visited." The shack mentioned is almost certainly the abandoned Arundel work shack from 1892 that is known to have been there and visible.  Several visits to the island by naval vessels over the years are well documented. None of the visits, naval or civilian, including this one in 1924, account for what has been found at the Seven Site.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #413 on: November 03, 2012, 07:28:42 PM »

I can't help you there Joe. I have never testified a chemical is of a certain type in a courtroom. You perhaps inferred a lot about my background that is not correct.
I can't run or calibrate a spectrometer or interferometer either. That was handled by the state lab boys. Now, I did learn to read a graph in middle school, and it's just my personal opinion your FTIR results don't come close to meeting any reasonable burden of proof. But that opinion is as a layman. I am no chemist or analyst. Also, most of my cases involving spectroscopic techniques were drug cases, and there was rarely a court challenge on those deals.You got a hard job, and would just keep working on it if you really believe this jar held Campana balm. I do not for reasons stated previously, I'll leave it at that. PM if you want to talk cop to cop or want some advice on which path to follow. I'll try! Haha.
This is an honest answer, Tom.  I think we're getting somewhere here.  I can see where you are coming from.  Frankly, if Campana were a person on trial for being a hand lotion, I could not guarantee just how that trial would turn out.  That's the justice system, and it's an honorable system and you should be proud to be a part of it.

In a scientific investigation, the approach may be somewhat different.  In science, an indicative hypothesis can still be a good one, building slowly, if it can, to a definitive one.  I'm sure someone has written a book somewhere on science versus the law and standards of evidence. I'll do some searching tonight.

Nevertheless, we actually do have some common ground here.  We both think the provisional answers to what the glass artifacts represent are consequential answers.  We conclude differently on the content of the answers, but this happens in life, as in law.  One can't always get a unanimous verdict.  We both agree that a sincere effort to seek the answers is underway.

Your experience is with people whose guilt or innocence is a very consequential matter. It pays to be careful and get the evidence right, and I agree.  I can't say I agree with your interpretation of the data, but I can understand the approach that guides your thinking.

"Cop to cop" is, however, a conversation you might find a bit one-sided.  I'm just a civilian, but enormously grateful for the work that officers such as yourself do in keeping the peace every day.


Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #414 on: November 04, 2012, 12:31:12 AM »

Cruises,both private and military, to and around Gardner is not laughable. It is a historical fact.

I saw no "advertisements for pleasure cruises" as you alleged. There is one newspaper article describing a cruise (not cruises) around the Phoenix Group in 1924.  There was no mention of what ship it was or why it went to the Phoenix Group. The article says that the islands are "seldom visited." The shack mentioned is almost certainly the abandoned Arundel work shack from 1892 that is known to have been there and visible.  Several visits to the island by naval vessels over the years are well documented. None of the visits, naval or civilian, including this one in 1924, account for what has been found at the Seven Site.

Ric, you are correct, my mistake on advertisements to Gardner. However,my point is still that private and military trips in the 1920's and 1930's were made. The HMS Leith and HMS Wellington made trips there, in addition to the private excursion listed above for pure recreation. Those are the ones we know about. I doubt every visit got a newspaper story. Also documented timber cutting trips as documented in the below thread. You state these parties could not leave empty bottles,fish bones,fires, and I respect that is Tighar's position. You may be right in that some or all belonged to Earhart. I was merely stating the island's traffic as pertains to found jars. People drop things in odd places. Keep the faith.

 http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=900.15
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #415 on: November 04, 2012, 05:30:12 AM »

This is a good discussion.  There are some things I think that might add some dimension here.  I will say as a disclaimer my visualization of the island is entirely secondhand and can be enhanced by Ric or those with firsthand experience. However, my understanding is the Seven Site has never been all that easy to reach either by wave action or deliberately walking there.  Ric told us once "It's a viciously hot half-hour hike up the beach" from the Loran Station.  Consequently, artifacts that arrive there would seem to me to have been deliberately brought there.  Dr. King stated yesterday "We have little or nothing to suggest that the features (or the site) were used prior to the 1930s-40s -- no prehistoric artifacts, for example." People DO drop things in odd places, and they did at the Seven Site, including 2 ceramic plates with Coast Guard logo, a wartime Coke bottle, and fragments that seem to match a military salt shaker.  "They" also dropped a number of other things, including a human skull, 12 other human bones, and a number of other artifacts not so easily attributable to the known activity.  (That anyone "could not leave" artifacts as Tom says TIGHAR has posited - is too absolute a position. TIGHAR has never been this dogmatic. She invites people to consider the evidence, rather than a rigidly defined position.)

The point that gets lost along the way seems to be that the site has been identified by people who have rigorously studied it as a probable site of castaway activity.  This means someone who is there not by choice but by accident. It's not someone from a pleasure cruise, unless the pleasure took a decidedly different turn along the way. We can interpret single artifacts differently. This is not a problem. But the possible relationship of things found at the site to one another and to the known or unknown activity needs to be somewhere in the picture when interpreting them.

Every visit may not have received a newspaper story, maybe, but most missing persons then or now, it seems to me, get missed by someone, and someone makes a note of it.  (If I'm mistaken there, Tom, I know you can provide some real life examples.) On the premise that missing people get noticed, Ric decided in October 2010 that any willing EPAC members should mount an "expedition" to the Library of Congress.  I signed up for duty along with Tom King, Lonnie Schorer and Ric.  We combed through the major print media circulated among the islands for signs of someone, anyone who might have gone missing or met with even a bit of trouble in the western Pacific in the 1930s and early 1940s but were unable to come up with even one story of a missing person who could plausibly have gone missing on Gardner at that time.  Such an event is not excluded, but these alternate scenarios have at least been entertained and researched by people who've given good energy to see this happen. I'm on the road today with just my iPad, and mobile devices don't allow upload of attachments to this website. But I have the 12-page research write-up that came out of that visit and if anyone feels the group here might be interested, send me your email through the messaging service here and I'll forward you this document for you to post to the forum here.** Thanks.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR


** Done.  See below for posted document.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 07:21:54 AM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #416 on: November 04, 2012, 07:37:13 AM »

Joe, things not only get dropped by visitors. Objects MOVE.
Check out the New Jersey storm surge. The ocean tends to move things around a bit.
On one hand you say there are WWII coke bottles found, and Corrugated tin roofing laying around the seven site, yet on the other hand
act like it is amazing some other bottles were washed there as well, by talking about the remoteness of the location. ???

As far as a partial skeleton, it would be unusual if bones were not found!
There was that big ship wrecked up the beach with 11 men drowned and 8 missing. Reports of bodies washing ashore half eaten by sharks. No doubt some bloated and drowned and floating ashore later.
There are many articles on it, this is one. Also check out the "awful ordeal" article on the same site. You don't have to look hard to find out why half skeletons were there.
I don't think everyone got a proper burial that day.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19291223.2.77&srpos=48&e=01-01-1919-01-01-1937--10--41----2phoenix+group--
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #417 on: November 04, 2012, 08:28:46 AM »

Tom,
These are legitimate questions if you haven't researched them. No one ever stated an absolute "my way or the highway" answer here. Important to keep in mind.  By using the search feature of this Forum and utilizing the TIGHAR website you will be rewarded a wealth of material.  They have been asked before.

I would suggest starting with Norwich City Survivors' Shelter

Then Nutiran

Then the Seven Site

Then the Norwich City Board of Trade Inquiry

Look over the articles, maps, etc., then come back and let me know what you thought. No hurry and at your leisure, of course. Others with island experience may chime in as and if they see fit.   

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR


Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #418 on: November 04, 2012, 09:40:41 AM »

Yes, it seems like there have been plenty of people asking the same questions.
Which is basically how can one rely on bones as evidence when there were quite a few drowned men nearby, jars that could have come from multiple sources, and campfires. It ain't evidence of a castaway when there were timber cutters nearby and their debris and fires might be a false trail.

In my view the best evidence Tighar has is George Putnam. A close relative is a good source of accurate information. He thought she may have headed to the phoenix group. As far as hard evidence, it seems scant, but the plexiglass is a unique item. That is the best evidence so far to me, and "maybe" the Bevington photo. Until another plane part is found, those two are it for me. Which is not a lot. However Tim Mellon says he sees the whole pile of plane, so perhaps the answer wont rest on bones and jars. I hope there is something really unique found soon.The reality of some missing persons is they never get resolved
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 09:43:34 AM by tom howard »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #419 on: November 04, 2012, 02:00:28 PM »

Which is basically how can one rely on bones as evidence when there were quite a few drowned men nearby
It depends on what you mean by nearby.  I'd estimate more than 4 miles from the Norwich City to the Seven Site, but that's only a guess and may be corrected later by someone more knowledgeable who has walked it.  The island can typically be more than 100 degrees, so walking can be tiring. I believe survivors stated (in the source I linked for you) that the port of Apia had been reached by radio prior to evacuating the ship. They knew help was steaming toward them. They were not - unlike our putative castaways - marooned.  So why wander over to the Seven Site?  Remember, also, anyone exploring that far has to walk all the way back for a rescue.  The Board of Trade interviewed all survivors, and none reported such an excursion. They were very specific about where their movements placed them, and why. As for the drowned men, one needs to assume at least one who didn't suffer the injuries or exertions that drowned his friends, swam around the entire length of the island to the Seven Site, survived long enough to eat animals from more than 1,400 fish bones, did some odd thing heating 1930s liniment and beer bottles to purify water, then made no attempt, having accomplished this feat, of re-contacting the comrades he knew were on the island who were at the spot 4 miles away, where rescue by the S.S. Trongate was nearly assured. For what it is worth, an eyewitness to the bones, Gerald Gallagher, who was charged with the upkeep and safety of everyone on the island in 1940, stated "There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the 'Norwich City.'"

, jars that could have come from multiple sources,
If you speak of all the glass artifacts, yes, as a set more than one glass item could and probably did come from a non- castaway source. There is a Coke bottle we are nearly certain came from the Coast Guard.  If we accept however, that the human remains were not likely to be from the Norwich City, it's highly likely the owner of some of the bottles, perhaps the majority of the bottles, is the castaway.  There is very little likelihood you can ascribe a pre World War II beer bottle and liniment bottle both burned in a fire AND a bottle whose remnants are ingredients "consistent with its having been used as a lotion or skin cream bottle" (Mass, Scientific Analysis of Fine Art, 2007) AND a jar strewn with mercury, but only on the interior, which just happens to have the same shape as a freckle cream jar, which also contained 12% mercury (EAG, 2012) AND a Benedictine bottle to anyone else at all times except under any circumstances to the individual whose bones were lying not more than a few feet from that region, along with, yes, the 1,400 fish bones, AND lots of other strange artifacts, including a jackknife smashed apart for the blades, a compact full of rouge, a mirror from a compact, AND an assortment of other strange and twisted objects bespeaking someone with technically advanced materials such as lucite.

Who, by the way, was only a castaway, not proven to be Amelia Earhart, I admit.

and campfires. It ain't evidence of a castaway when there were timber cutters nearby and their debris and fires might be a false trail.
We must remember Niku isn't a forest reserve in the Maine woods or a campground on Martha's Vineyard.  The timber cutters, so far as I can see, we're there briefly for minor ship repairs.  Most ships, so far as I can see, weigh anchor off the stern of the Norwich City so as to provide a stable point from which to launch boats into the current for a landing.  Again, that's a long way from the Seven Site.  These industrious loggers, these rough and ready men, hauling off the entire forest of Kanawa from the island, aren't likely to have had rouge and a compact.

In my view the best evidence Tighar has is George Putnam. A close relative is a good source of accurate information.
I agree.  Search "Earhart's mother kept suitcase" in the Books section of Google and you'll see what one close relative thought her daughter would most want to have nearby if she ever should re-appear.

Until another plane part is found, those two are it for me. Which is not a lot.
I share your hope more will turn up and am glad you haven't given up hope.  I know your standard of proof is high and my ramblings are unlikely to sway you.  We have, as you point out, tried hard to do everything possible to figure out what the artifacts are and who brought them.  You may not give much credence to what you read here, but I know your interest level is high.  Thanks for your scrutiny.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 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