Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 39   Go Down

Author Topic: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream  (Read 414656 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #210 on: September 02, 2012, 06:40:32 PM »


BTW, have I asked you how long you've known David Billings?

Ric - have a look at the Lambrecht thread - the whole sordid conspiracy is revealed.  ;D
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #211 on: September 02, 2012, 06:56:32 PM »

What I meant by "unknown company" is that we do not know if this jar ever held Dr.Berrys ointment.
Of course it's Hazel atlas made, the glass is so marked, but who Hazel atlas sold it to, and who filled it with ointment, is the unknown company.
Unfortunately the jar did not come with a label.
I never said "the company that made this jar is unknown" but I can see where it might be read that way, so I just edited my Original.
My post should have been read "Unknown ointment MADE BY an unknown company."

I agree with what you say now that I understand it better.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #212 on: September 02, 2012, 07:29:33 PM »

Quote
although this site contains the ditigal copies of this newspaper from 24 March 1870 to 31 December 1945 (23312 issues), only one ad is found for "Dr Berry's Freckle Cream" and one separate mention is made of "Dr Berry's Freckle Ointment".

Doubt very much if one advert in 75 years and 23312 issues brought in many customers.
It only takes one. ;)


Who also amazingly was the one who ended up on Gardner island? Would have liked to have a couple of bucks on those odds ;)
This must be the place
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #213 on: September 02, 2012, 07:30:04 PM »


...Please provide your source for your statement that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands.

...And I will ask you again to please provide a source for your statement that New Zealand was in the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands colony.


Ric,

Of course you know Harry Maude reported in his book “Of Islands and Men” that in Sept. 1937 he was,  “…directed by Sir Arthur Richards, then High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, to lead a pioneering expedition to the Phoenix Group…”

The very same Sir Arthur Richards turns up again in a news-story published in the Auckland Star on Jan 4, 1938.  Part of the text reads-
 
“...The Imperial escort vessel Wellington left Auckland [New Zealand] this morning for Suva and other islands under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, Sir Arthur Richards...”

“Sir Arthur made a request to Rear-Admiral the Hon. E. R. Drummond, Commodore Commanding the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy, for the use of one of the escort vessels to take supplies and reliefs on a routine cruise of the islands under his control..  Such is one of the main functions of the escort vessels, but it is not usual to make island cruises in the summer months... Probably the Wellington, which previously figured in an incident of international import at Canton Island, in the Phoenix Group, when the right to remain in the only known anchorage was disputed by the American naval vessel Avocet, will again call at Canton Island.”


Ric- if you are claiming New Zealand was NOT part of the Phoenix Island supply chain, can you please explain why you believe that?

The article is here-

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19380104.2.111&srpos=1&e=-------10--1----0supplies+to+phoenix+islands--

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5267
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #214 on: September 02, 2012, 08:44:20 PM »

Of course you know Harry Maude reported in his book “Of Islands and Men” that in Sept. 1937 he was,  “…directed by Sir Arthur Richards, then High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, to lead a pioneering expedition to the Phoenix Group…”

It's nice of you to try to cover for Malcolm and, yes, I'm familiar with Sir Arthur Richards, the High Commissioner at the time Maude proposed the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme (PISS).  In fact, the original village site on Nikumaroro was later named Ritiati (the Gilbertese transliteration of Richards) in his honor.

The very same Sir Arthur Richards turns up again in a news-story published in the Auckland Star on Jan 4, 1938.  Part of the text reads- etc., etc.
 

This has nothing to do with the PISS.  The first work party did not arrive at Gardner until nearly a year later - December 20, 1938.

Ric- if you are claiming New Zealand was NOT part of the Phoenix Island supply chain, can you please explain why you believe that?

I'm not claiming anything.  I asked Malcolm to cite his source. 
We've made quite a study of the PISS.  TIGHAR board member Bill Carter and I spent a week in Tarawa last year reading and copying hundreds of documents in the Kiribati National Archive, many of which are on the TIGHAR website at Tarawa Files.  You might especially find Report on Gardner Co-Op Store interesting.  At least in 1939 "Goods for the Co-Op Stores are purchased locally [in Fiji] or through Colony Agents in Australia. A few items, principally tobacco, also come from Fiji ..." 
I recall seeing later accounting files showing invoices from vendors, all in Australia.  I've seen nothing to indicate that the Western Pacific High Commission bought supplies for the PISS in New Zealand - but Malcolm stated unequivocally that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands.  Malcolm needs to either cite a primary source document supporting his statement or admit that he made it up.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #215 on: September 02, 2012, 08:49:04 PM »


A few items, principally tobacco, also come from Fiji ..." 
I recall seeing later accounting files showing invoices from vendors, all in Australia.  I've seen nothing to indicate that the Western Pacific High Commission bought supplies for the PISS in New Zealand - but Malcolm stated unequivocally that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands.  Malcolm needs to either cite a primary source document supporting his statement or admit that he made it up.

Ric - you're snookered fair and square on this one. Please don't turn it into farce. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5267
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #216 on: September 02, 2012, 08:58:22 PM »

How well TIGHAR knows: she's been many times, worked and looked hard and found new things each time, I believe.  I further believe she has hardly scratched the surface so far - it's that big and complex.

Jeff, let me say how much I appreciate you referring to TIGHAR as feminine.  Because I'm the one who gets the bulk of the media attention, the line between me and TIGHAR is often, unfortunately, blurred.  Very few people refer to me as "she" so making TIGHAR female should help reduce that confusion. It's a convention I will adopt.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5267
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #217 on: September 02, 2012, 09:09:24 PM »

Ric - you're snookered fair and square on this one. Please don't turn it into farce.

It's not going to work Malcolm.  You made a statement of fact that you cannot support.  That crosses a line.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5267
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #218 on: September 03, 2012, 08:46:58 AM »

Hmmm...... what about the media reports about freckle cream jars, finger bones, debris fields. No wait don't answer, that was the media not TIGHAR - of course silly me. Tell me seriously why does TIGHAR release this sort of stuff to the media without doing proper due diligence.

Pssst...Malcolm.....your agenda is showing.  As I've shown repeatedly here, we're far more diligent in our research than you are in your sniping.
We operate with funds solicited from the general public and we have a responsibility to report our findings to our supporters.What we report to the media is accurate.  We have no control over the headlines they write.  I wish we did.

It only invites criticism that in the end works against you.

Really?  I hadn't noticed.  The response from the media and the public has been overwhelmingly positive and TIGHAR membership has skyrocketed.  Sure, reporting our findings invites criticism and there are those who seem determined to work against TIGHAR, but that's their problem, not hers.

Ric the jar could have come from New Zealand in a supply ship carrying cargo to the islands, or with the New Zealand survey party in 1938.

Or it could have been carried there by a migrating swallow - an African swallow maybe, not a European swallow.  All hypotheses are equal - right?
Re-stating a falsehood doesn't make it less false. We can find no record of a New Zealand supply ship carrying cargo to Gardner Island and it's obvious that the 1938 New Zealand survey party was never at the Seven Site.

It is TIGHAR who made the claims about it being linked to Earhart not me, not the agents of some anti-TIGHAR conspiracy - TIGHAR itself.

Show me where we made claims that the jar is linked to Earhart.  We try to identify the artifacts we find and we report the results of our research. Based on what we've learned and reported there are reasons to think that the jar may be linked to Earhart.  You may not find those reasons compelling.  That's up to you. 
What we don't do is make up "facts" to support our speculation - which is exactly what you've done - repeatedly - and that crosses a line.
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #219 on: September 03, 2012, 12:30:22 PM »

Hmmm...... what about the media reports about freckle cream jars, finger bones, debris fields. No wait don't answer, that was the media not TIGHAR - of course silly me. Tell me seriously why does TIGHAR release this sort of stuff to the media without doing proper due diligence.

Pssst...Malcolm.....your agenda is showing.  As I've shown repeatedly here, we're far more diligent in our research than you are in your sniping.
We operate with funds solicited from the general public and we have a responsibility to report our findings to our supporters.What we report to the media is accurate.  We have no control over the headlines they write.  I wish we did.

It only invites criticism that in the end works against you.

Really?  I hadn't noticed.  The response from the media and the public has been overwhelmingly positive and TIGHAR membership has skyrocketed.  Sure, reporting our findings invites criticism and there are those who seem determined to work against TIGHAR, but that's their problem, not hers.

Ric the jar could have come from New Zealand in a supply ship carrying cargo to the islands, or with the New Zealand survey party in 1938.

Or it could have been carried there by a migrating swallow - an African swallow maybe, not a European swallow.  All hypotheses are equal - right?
Re-stating a falsehood doesn't make it less false. We can find no record of a New Zealand supply ship carrying cargo to Gardner Island and it's obvious that the 1938 New Zealand survey party was never at the Seven Site.

It is TIGHAR who made the claims about it being linked to Earhart not me, not the agents of some anti-TIGHAR conspiracy - TIGHAR itself.

Show me where we made claims that the jar is linked to Earhart.  We try to identify the artifacts we find and we report the results of our research. Based on what we've learned and reported there are reasons to think that the jar may be linked to Earhart.  You may not find those reasons compelling.  That's up to you. 
What we don't do is make up "facts" to support our speculation - which is exactly what you've done - repeatedly - and that crosses a line.


   If the new Zealand survey team was anywhere on Gardner they could have left, or dropped, the jar and later someone ( piss? ? ) picks up the jar and carries it around with her for awhile and eventually discards it around the seven site.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5267
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #220 on: September 03, 2012, 12:44:19 PM »

   If the new Zealand survey team was anywhere on Gardner they could have left, or dropped, the jar and later someone ( piss? ? ) picks up the jar and carries it around with her for awhile and eventually discards it around the seven site.

And, and, ... let's see... when they discard it at the Seven Site it breaks and then somebody decides to use one of the broken pieces to carve up a turtle because broken pieces of glass are obviously better than knives for cutting up turtles which the people who were there tell us they didn't do until they got the turtle back home to the village.

Personally I prefer the swallow hypothesis (African swallow, not European). .
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #221 on: September 03, 2012, 03:22:42 PM »

Alan, here is an easy to find reference for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company that states "The Hazel-Atlas mark, usually placed on the back of the product, is an 'A' nested underneath an 'H'. The mark was reportedly first used in 1923, according to trademark office records quoted by Peterson (400 Trademarks on Glass)".

Yes, thank you, I was well aware of the Wiki entry.  Also Ricker Jones posted the exact same language from a different web site back in Reply 110.  What I was discussing is whether Wiki/"Peterson" have it right, or have the entire story.  Plus, it references the "trademark office", and I believe it is not unknown for companies to use names, and logos, before going through the official filing process.  Anyway, IMO there is reason to question it, as other data are strongly suggesting that the jar is older than 1923.  That's why I am hoping the official report now in preparation can untangle this for us.

Quote
  Also the mark is not distorted as shown in this reference.http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html

Possibly we have different definitions of "distorted".  As I look at Randy's photo "glass4.jpg", what we believe is/was a complete block letter "A" is not really recognizable as such unless you already know what it should be.  John Kada's reference to "Babylonian cuneiform" is quite apt IMO.

Alan, as usual you have summed it up nicely. Someone can go on the glasslovers database on Wiki, and read that HA was first trademarked in 1923. Putting that information to use on jars leads to a date of 1923 or later.
Except that isn't the whole story.
Most websites agree that HA was the only symbol ever used with some slight variations.
http://hazelatlasglass.com/hazel-atlas-mark.html

Where it tends to get confusing, and where the 1923 date comes up, is that is the first year Hazel Atlas made plates. It's that simple. They moved from industrial production to the kitchen. Since most glass collectors databases are concerned with collectibles such as plates, vases, ect, the 1923 date is frequently said to be the start of the H over A use. They started producing plate and dishes and applied their trademark to such.

As Alan mentioned, most items found by search, and most collectors of glass suggest Hazel Atlas used an H over A since they merged. Now some jars, just like the plates were not marked at all. Some special containers such as milk containers were marked in different fashions, I.E, "registered" might be the only marking on the glass.( they had to reuse the glass and it was for food products). Also jam jars had variations.
But bottom line, an H over an A doesn't mean it was made after 1923. Markings are murky in general on industrial glass. The bottom of jars were not made for looks. Some plants would add even more detail than others, for example production lots and runs.
Sometimes special runs were made with a buyers name embossed in the glass bottom.

What we do know, and have found, is way back a few pages in this thread. Where it was found that in several years of the trade Journal "the National druggist", (where cream companies might buy a jar for their ointment), that this clear jar was not available for sale by hazel atlas after 1918, and was available only in opal(white).
So in my opinion, until better evidence is presented, the best evidence I have seen is this is a 1918 or earlier jar.
Whether that jar was brought to the island by New Zealanders, or tree cutters, Earnhart, birds, or tidal action is for each to decide.
Out of all of the above, I cannot fathom why Amelia would be using a 20 year old bottle of ointment and that possibility seems unlikely to me. A 1924 group of men needing sunscreen, that is a possibility perhaps.
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #222 on: September 03, 2012, 04:04:43 PM »

   If the new Zealand survey team was anywhere on Gardner they could have left, or dropped, the jar and later someone ( piss? ? ) picks up the jar and carries it around with her for awhile and eventually discards it around the seven site.

And, and, ... let's see... when they discard it at the Seven Site it breaks and then somebody decides to use one of the broken pieces to carve up a turtle because broken pieces of glass are obviously better than knives for cutting up turtles which the people who were there tell us they didn't do until they got the turtle back home to the village.

Personally I prefer the swallow hypothesis (African swallow, not European). .

   If I recall correctly you stated that ae had a knife at the seven site, I believe you found the handles. It was surmised that she attached the blade to a spear for fishing. If the turtle was cut up by a piece of the jar it seems to me that it was done by some one else as ae would IMHO have used the knife you have inferred she had.
    There is not one event that happened at the seven site that can't be easily explained without creating IMO a urban legend type story about ae living and hunting done at the seven site. Please name one event, just one, that you know that ae and only ae could have done at the seven site.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #223 on: September 03, 2012, 06:11:39 PM »

Died.
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

drriddle

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream
« Reply #224 on: September 03, 2012, 06:17:01 PM »

   If I recall correctly you stated that ae had a knife at the seven site, I believe you found the handles. It was surmised that she attached the blade to a spear for fishing. If the turtle was cut up by a piece of the jar it seems to me that it was done by some one else as ae would IMHO have used the knife you have inferred she had.

It's just as possible that the castaway had the knife, broke it, lost the blade in the water, and then resorted to using a broken bottle.

    There is not one event that happened at the seven site that can't be easily explained without creating IMO a urban legend type story about ae living and hunting done at the seven site. Please name one event, just one, that you know that ae and only ae could have done at the seven site.

That isn't how a scientific investigation works.  TIGHAR has laid out a hypothesis, based on the evidence, of what an unknown castaway did at the site.  There is evidence that the castaway was European, based on the skeletal remains found, the way they selected, prepared ate the animals found at the site, the items found there, and so on.  There is no way to know at the moment if that was Amelia Earhart, and there is no way to say that "only AE" could have done something at the site. 

Stating that "it couldn't have been AE because you can't prove that only she did these things" shows that you're not interested in following the trail of evidence.  You've already made up your mind that TIGHAR is wrong, and nothing is going to change your mind.  So why are you wasting your time here?
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 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