Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)  (Read 56150 times)

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2014, 09:07:18 PM »

A round of applause for what Jennifer said...

Have been working with my daughter to try to get her through her high school math class and one of the topics recently was graphing.  One of the specific sections dealt with "scatter graphs" and I see the points that are raised in the forum being analogous to that type of graph.  ie there will be points out in left field that will ultimately have little or no influence on the final line plot even though they may be valid data points.  Point being that the ideas that may appear extraneous should not necessarily be beaten down right from the get-go.

To continue the scatter graph analogy, I guess some of us try to find a valid path through the data while others start with an assumed line and work backwards.

Just observing, not passing judgement on relative validity of either approach to the same goal.

The idea that TIGHAR starts with an assumed line and works backwards is often heard by critics of TIGHAR's work.  I know you weren't trying at all to be critical when you raised the point, and I applaud your fair-mindedness in not taking sides in inductive vs. deductive reasoning.  Still, if I'm reading you correctly, you observe that you prefer to let evidence lead you to a hypothesis rather than letting a hypothesis lead you to evidence.  That's fair enough and concerning tastes there can be no disputing.  Allow me to make an attempt, feeble as it may be since I am no exemplar of science, to defend the scientific pathway that "others," myself among them, have at times adopted.

In a court of law, having oneself be led in step-wise fashion by the evidence in a forward progression is an accepted mode of fact-finding. In science, however, I think the toolbox of accepted modes may be somewhat more diverse.  For myself, I agree with Marty Moleski when he calls this type of "working backward" instead a process of laboring at "confirmation of a theory."  It's perfectly OK, I think, to construct models of how you think things ought to behave IF you at the same time work diligently to confirm (or, as is perhaps more often the case, dispel) whether the models have any basis in fact.  Years ago, Ric Gillespie recommended to us a book whose central premise was just this point.  The book is Smart World by Richard Ogle.  The chapters on how Watson and Crick determined the molecular structure of DNA make the best arguments in favor of the "retroductive" approach.  In explications of the scientific method I've read, this is called "making a prediction" based on a hypothesis.

I'd like to apologize if anything I said here seemed to beat down your idea.  You have effectively touched on some hot button issues, and my comments were probably more directed to a chorus of critics, many of whom I've encountered in private emails.  You found the bottle and that was great work.  These imperial oblongs aren't terribly easy to find.  I'm impressed with your willingness to bring it forward, so impressed, in fact, that I purchased the bottle from eBay today for a closer look.  The seller says it's completely empty; therefore, it probably can't be tested for the original contents.  Even so, I am interested in seeing it.

One needs to understand that anything having to do with that particular artifact, and a few others, that is brought up is entering into the middle of a long process of research and discussion.  I'm not trying be a wet blanket or take all the fun out of this process, although I know that sometimes I do do that.  As you can tell, I'm good at lecturing, not so much at dialogue.  Maybe one can begin from these points.  Either way, I'm glad you've chosen to take part in the discussion.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 03:57:30 AM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2014, 05:40:11 AM »

Now Joe gets a round of applause, well said sir

Concerned that you are dropping your own dime for this (and previously)...

I know my significant other would beat me severely if I did such a thing.

Would there be a way to set up a small slush fund for this type of purchase, not sure of the logistics of managing such a beast though...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 08:29:44 AM by Doug Ledlie »
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2014, 12:34:58 PM »

TIGHAR does not have slush funds. It has "targeted research-specific expenditures."  ;D

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who thinks he'll slush a little something on some used paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2014, 02:30:49 PM »

Here's a piece of info / here's an idea - according to the web-page linked below, Skat insect repellent was produced in a 'cream' formula before the more common liquid form appeared in WW2.  Maybe this formula included Gum Tragacanth.
Nice work, Mark.  It appears you have come across the 6:2:2 formula of insect repellent.  We discuss it and indalone as an ingredient in this wartime formulation of Skat here.  We'd need to test to be sure, but documentation we looked at showed dimethyl phthalate, indalone, and Rutgers 612.  No Tragacanth is in this formulation so far as is known.

It would be nice if we had a bottle of this formulation in the actual style of bottle that was found on Niku.  The bottles pictured don't look at all like the Niku bottle fragment.  As you quoted from Jennifer, "Any scientist will acknowledge uncertainties," and I'm sure you will acknowledge that's one.

I feel it's only fair to point out that you've utilized a straw man here.  No one, including myself, ever claimed Tragacanth was limited only to women's personal care products.  It has been suggested, however, quite truthfully that we have no other product, yet, with that style and that base stamp that has been lab-tested as containing Tragacanth.  Saying repeatedly what could be true is not a good substitute for what has actually been tested as true, and it argues against a point that has not been made, namely, that Campana Italian Balm is the only possible solution to the riddle of that artifact's identity. 


Joe,
I have no problem acknowledging the unbroken bottle might have once contained Campana's Italian Balm, although I believe it is still too early to completely dismiss other products such as sun tan lotion, hair tonic, or yes, the 'early and rare' government issued insect repellent mentioned before and in the link below. 
 
Considering that we now know - for certain - Campana's Italian Balm was recommended for use by men as a shaving 'aid', [and as a sun-burn remedy] would you now acknowledge it is entirely logical to propose the bottle was not brought to the island by Amelia Earhart [or FN], but arrived there as part of a Coastie's shaving/personal care kit?

[The 'early' Skat formula shown here does not appear to be the 6:2:2 formula, but the 'first repellent issued' as described below,]
 
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3721349;view=1up;seq=151

Preventive Medicine in World War II. Office of the Surgeon General, Dept. of the Army. 1955

"...At the beginning of the war, insect repellents became the subject of intensive research by Government agencies and the Armed Forces, chiefly in  connection with mosquitoes and malaria. New repellents were adopted by the Army in 1942 and were issued toward the end of that year. Indalone  (butopyronoxyl), the first repellent issued, was superseded early in 1943 by  the much more effective Rutgers 612 (2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol), and by dimethyl phthalate. These in turn, as stocks were used up, were replaced by a 6-2-2 mixture of dimethyl phthalate, "612," and Indalone; this mixture was adopted  late in 1943."



Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2014, 06:20:31 PM »


 
Considering that we now know - for certain - Campana's Italian Balm was recommended for use by men as a shaving 'aid', [and as a sun-burn remedy] would you now acknowledge it is entirely logical to propose the bottle was not brought to the island by Amelia Earhart [or FN], but arrived there as part of a Coastie's shaving/personal care kit?



We now know Campana advertised possible uses they hoped men might find for its product because I purchased and scanned that flyer that you are posting as a new research finding.  I posted it on February 9 last year.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.480.html
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.480.html

Your statement claims a position I've never taken.  I said on February 9 last year:
"Mark Pearce asked that I post scanned images of the little flyer that shipped with the box of Campana Dreskin in 1934.  The flyer shows that Dreskin in certain instances was marketed as a product for both genders in 1934."

I think it entirely within the realm of possibility that 2-8-S-2a is a Coastie-fact, owned, brought and deposited by none other than the United States Coast Guard from 1944-1946.  I thought so then; I thought so now.  How much more conciliatory and conceding could I be? 

I do not think it within the realm of probability, however.  If I were asked to give odds, I'd estimate the odds at 20% at best.  That is only my opinion, of course.  I agree to disagree with you on the point.  I know you believe differently, and I am at peace with that.

Why do I think the artifact is castaway-related, if not possibly Earhart-related?
Well, a few reasons spring to mind.

The bottle is dated, not to within moral certainty, but to within reasonable doubt - to the year 1933.
Coasties and men in general were not known to be particularly acute to the dangers of sunburn in the 1940s, so far as I am aware, although for certain they DID shave.
When the context of this artifact is examined, we have on the same site within yards of where the bottle was found parts of a human skeleton, to whom no critic has ever wished to assign any personal belongings, BTW.  Just saying.
We also have a mirror compact, what looks to be a cosmetic cream jar (we can be more specific but let's call it that for now), and rouge along with a host of other telling artifacts that appear to be more castaway-related than Coastie-related.
We also have statements by the Campana Company that their product was unavailable in the 1940s, that World War II demand for glycerine, as well as trade issues with Iran for Tragacanth, both key ingredients in Campana, stopped its production.  See attached.   I grant that this is only a statement from an advertisement.  Campana was advertised as available throughout the war years, so these things need to be taken with a grain of salt.  However, I do think it indicates Campana was hard to procure during the war years, thus making it harder for a Coast Guardsmen to obtain.

This is part of the case.  I'm sure those who have researched it and have a better memory than mine can think of other things.  It's simply something I tend to think logically is more probable.  As has been stated recently, however, improbable things happen all the time.  You could be right. 

So why need there be contention?  There's room enough for all sorts of opinions.  I've dismissed nothing so far as I'm aware.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C


Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2014, 10:33:32 PM »

I said on February 9 last year: "Mark Pearce asked that I post scanned images of the little flyer that shipped with the box of Campana Dreskin in 1934.  The flyer shows that Dreskin in certain instances was marketed as a product for both genders in 1934."

On the narrow point of who Dreskin was marketed to, here is a link to a 1939 issue of the Niagara Falls Gazette containing an advertisement for Dreskin in which it is identified as a men's after shave, sold as a package deal (‘Both for 39 Cents’) with Barbasol Shaving Cream.  And here is a 1945 advertisement in the Torrance, CA Gazette in which Dreskin is identified as after shave and a ‘Mens Needs’ product, as distinguished from the ‘Woman’s Needs’ products identified separately.   Mark Pearce found a similar ad in another issue of the Torrance Paper.  I think it is fair to say that at the time Coasties were stationed on Gardner/Niku, Dreskin had been widely marketed as a men’s product for a number of years.

I haven’t followed the debate about what 2-8-s-2a is to form a strong opinion about whether it’s a Campana Italian Balm bottle or whether Dreskin is a good alternative possibility — reading up on all the research that has been put into 2-8-s-2a is a task I’m not sure I’m up to at the moment. But in any case I salute Joe, Mark and the others for their efforts considering the origins of this artifact.

-----
added: I forgot to mention this link to WW2-era radio program listings: The First Nighter Program. July 16, 1944. Program #638. Mutual net. "Old Lady Shakespeare". Sponsored by: Campana Dreskin After Shave. A grand old lady of the theatre stages a final comeback...as cupid. See cat. #3475 for same script performed on the same show four years later. Virginia Payne, Hugh Studebaker, Ed Prentiss, Gene Baker (announcer), Forrest Barnes (writer). 28:49. Audio condition: Very good. Complete.1944 First Nighter program
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 10:47:50 PM by Steve Lee »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2014, 03:51:32 AM »

Steve,
I appreciate the research and the compliment, as do I'm sure Mark and the rest.
Campana Dreskin did not contain Tragacanth, as demonstrated in the comparison of ingredient lists (shown below) between Italian Balm and Dreskin.

The artifact did contain Tragacanth, as did an authentic bottle of Italian Balm.

It may not close any doors to its possible use by men but it does satisfy me at least that Dreskin is an avenue that is not a likely identification.

The lab results have great value and are very telling if we will take the time to listen to what they tell us.

For me to be satisfied there is a candidate product for the artifact, whether insect repellent, hair tonic or ice cream, I would want to see Tragacanth on an FTIR graph (as interpreted) overlaid with the graph for the red-brown spots.  I would want to see that product in the same shape bottle with the same base stamping as the artifact.  Others have other standards of proof, but that's mine.

(Ice cream BTW often had Tragacanth.  Maybe the artifact was that.).
 :D



Dreskin ingredients :
F. D. & C. Color
Essential Oils
Glycerine
Boric acid
Methyl parasept
Alcohol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957


Ingredients list for Campana’s Italian Balm :
Essential oils
Alcohol
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Gum Tragacanth
Glycerin
Sorbitol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957



Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 07:36:31 PM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2014, 06:03:53 AM »

The context of the find (being with other odd items such as the compact / mirror, etc.) remains very interesting, as do the lab results.  While I appreciate the ongoing challenges (and each must have his standard, no problem with that) these points suggest something different from the ordinary expectation of this being a coastie contribution to me.

Excellent work, Joe.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2014, 07:19:20 AM »

Steve,
I appreciate the research and the compliment, as do I'm sure Mark and the rest.
Campana Dreskin did not contain Tragacanth, as demonstrated in the comparison of ingredient lists (shown below) between Italian Balm and Dreskin.

The artifact did contain Tragacanth, as did an authentic bottle of Italian Balm.

It may not close any doors to its possible use by men but it does satisfy me at least that Dreskin is an avenue that is not a likely identification.

The lab results have great value and are very telling if we will take the time to listen to what they tell us.

For me to be satisfied there is a candidate product for the artifact, whether insect repellent, hair tonic or ice cream, I would want to see Tragacanth on an FTIR graph (as interpreted) overlaid with the graph for the red-brown spots.  Others have other standards of proof, but that's mine.

(Ice cream BTW often had Tragacanth.  Maybe the artifact was that.).
 :D



Dreskin ingredients :
F. D. & C. Color
Essential Oils
Glycerine
Boric acid
Methyl parasept
Alcohol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957


Ingredients list for Campana’s Italian Balm :
Essential oils
Alcohol
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Gum Tragacanth
Glycerin
Sorbitol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957



Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

Joe, I did see this earlier post of yours on the comparison of ingredients, which is why I limited my post to the 'narrow point of who Dreskin was marketed to'.  But, I do think it would be helpful if someone could find a listing of the ingredients of Dreskin during the 1944-1946 era when the Coasties were on Gardner/Niku. It is amazing that you were able to find a comparison of ingredients, but perhaps by 1957 the formula of Dreskin was different than during WW2?  I recognize that finding a 1940s recipe for Dreskin -- I'll give it a try myself, although I don't have a lot of time at the moment -- but it would be helpful.

A quick search on the internet indicates that Gum Tragacanth was an ingredient in some after-shaves in the days when pharmacists made after-shave at the store using formulas in druggist trade publications and books.  The mass-produced versions of after-shave and other drug store products that were available in the 1930s and 1940s, many perhaps even still available today, in some cases were pretty similar in content to the stuff druggists made themselves at the store back in the old days.  If I've learned nothing else from reading this thread, I've learned where I can find recipes to make almost anything in my medicine cabinet  :)

Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2014, 07:30:54 AM »

With "no parabens", one hopes.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5318
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2014, 07:56:25 AM »

We are truly indebted to the doubters.  The desperation evident in their efforts is the greatest testimony to the strength of the preponderance of evidence supporting TIGHAR's hypothesis.
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2014, 08:03:39 AM »

Gee, Thanks Ric.

Well put, as usual!
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2014, 09:59:24 AM »

I found a large number of references to Gum Tragacanth being used in leatherwork, and as an ingredient in some leather finishes.   The combination of Gum Trag and Lanolin sounds like it could be a potential leather treatment to me (not a surprise - treatments for chapped hands also work for leather).  The idea brings to mind someone wanting shiny leather shoes, therefore not likely a native.  I find it hard to believe a 1930's leather treatment would match Campagna's FTIR signature, and be found in an identical bottle, I'd like to ask if a leather conditioner had been considered?  The more alternatives we can rule-out, the stronger our case becomes.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2014, 11:44:43 AM »

Preponderance of evidence defined

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

What Doug said.

It can be parsed to death, but at the end of the day this pursuit will likely be about where it is today, choose your poison as a witness.

To expand on my comment of this artifact and its circumstances being 'interesting', I'll add that the whole picture is decidely compelling to me.  Just MHO, of course - and further to Ric's comment, we'll have no end of challenges to tickle away at 'what else it might be'.  More power to 'em, I 'spose, to each his own.

Having prepondered this and much more I continue to see Gardner / Niku as 'the place to look' if I were to hope for finding ruins of Earhart's last flight.  Others differ - whether they wish to merely have me and others take another objective look or to actively ping away at any confidence others might have in what TIGHAR offer, I can't know so well. 

What is striking, notwithstanding those who merely promote objectivity, is why any would bother wanting to chip away here, if that's the case: chip away at what?  This is where "the Earhart Industrial Complex" seems to step in: there are definitely others going about this chase in their own ways, and perhaps as they see it, competing for public affections and dollars.

Perhaps?  Most distinctly, they are competing for affection and dollars, else we'd not see the pleas for attention on the open web.  It's a free world (well, some of it - and we're supposedly still at the hub of that) so nothing wrong with some competition, one supposes.

Far fetched to believe 'competing interests' would visit here to post or challenge?  Not at all - at least one of our favorite naysayers is a champion today for a current 'alternate hypothesis'.  That's fine, don't get me wrong - the man remains a friend and I believe even an enthusiast for my own enthusiasm (as I am for his) even if we believe in turning over different areas of heaven and earth to find that lost bird.

So where do the current challengers fall in all this in terms of intent?  Personally it doesn't matter to me.  I appreciate the reasonably mannered and well-thought out challenges and offerings of well-researched information, and am content to let the chips fall where they will, as I value the quality of the chase above all else.

Which leads me to one more observation where all these 'competing' efforts are concerned: none of the others are offering me one shred of tangible anything to 'preponder', only TIGHAR has put up sherds and scraps for us to whittle away at.  That's fairly ballsy of TIGHAR in my view and I like it.  The others have 'ideas' that vary from very intelligent possibilities to borderline nutty, or worse (in my view... tin hat please) - and not one of the others welcomes the kind of challenge that TIGHAR accepts on these pages.  Not knocking anyone else or their efforts, just making a personal observation: this is also rather ballsy of TIGHAR and frankly it gets my deeper affections and a few modest bucks now and then; I'm a bit hard pressed to find the same enthusiasm among the others where that kind of offering is not made.  TIGHAR stands alone in terms of accepting public criticism, in whatever form.

Goerner was close to Nimitz; Nimitz intimated whatver feelings he had about things and fed Goerner's thoughts in some way - sounds heavy, but not one moldy blindfold or shoe heel has turned up on Saipan to-date.  Goerner believes TIGHAR oversimplifies things...

Others 'just know' it had to be crash-n-sank - and some 'just know' where that had to be...

Others see targets in the sonar readings of former searches...

Consider that none are alone in these things - including TIGHAR, which did not 'make up' the first theory of the USN (a Gardner landfall possiblity).  Nor is Goerner and his concern for simplification not respected - including that someone as bright as Hooven believed in a Japanese intervention (at Gardner Island, of all things...).

Lots of smart people.  Lots of pointers.  Lots of cross-encouragement, actually, among those who care to search - so one does naturally wonder, what of people who constantly work across the grain of those who seek?  Do they do so, or do they merely wish to enhance the depth of the effort?

Short of the obvious troll, maybe that simply depends on how one 'takes' the offering.  But what is odd is the 'competing effort' reality and the nature of some of the challenges now and then - it really does remind one that competition is alive and well. 

All over a Kansas girl who disappeared in the vastness of the Pacific in 1937, who, to keep this relevant by a sliver, did use 'stuff' that is consistent with the 'sherds and scraps' we've been discussing on this very site for some time and with a great deal now of depth.  That peculiar interest may be a book in and of itself.

So back to the topic - cool stuff - and indeed, my own preponderance puts it way up the ladder of interest in sniffing out what happened to Amelia Earhart - how very odd that these lady-like things of the right vintage turned up where some wretched castaway was apparently finally rendered by coconut crabs many decades ago.  How very odd that the more good folks like Joe study these things, tell-tale remains suggest commonality to the kinds of things that aviatrix was associated with - didn't like freckles and was camera conscious.

And how unique that it can be discussed to such depth in a place so easy to access - thanks, TIGHAR - you are alone on that stage.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:49:45 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   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