It is true that people have different levels of "proof".
We have thousands who saw planes fly into the world trade center, survivors, news crews, it's on video, yet some people still claim no planes hit.
You can't please everybody nor should that be a goal.
BUT... you can make a stronger case for the majority of rational people with cumulative circumstantial evidence.
And short of a found plane, that is all we are going to get, cumulative circumstantial evidence.
In the court of law, men have been put to death with enough of it.
In the case of the jar, it goes from very intriquing to zero weight
if this jar cannot be dated.
The date is a starting point. Without a date that fits, such as a catalog or ad or evidence of a production date around 1936-1937, then it should not be considered relevant at all.
The police do this with every crime scene. They sort out the relevant artifacts from random debris.
Without a date, there is no way to tell the difference and sort it.
So far, I haven't seen evidence of a relevant date. Not one advertisement or production log listing this Jar as being made around 1937.
In fact everything I have found shows the opposite, that in 1937 it should be milk glass. Previous posters on this thread have given advertisements for Dr.Berrys in 1936. It was milk glass as well.
You can't just say here is this jar, and it looks like a jar that once held freckle cream "around" the first half of the 20th century.
That is concerning, if in fact there has been considerable man hours spent searching for this information.
This is not searching for Noahs ark. There are Hazel Atlas catalogs, now most exist in libraries, I have found them in libraries at Santa Barbara, Ball State U, and the University of West Virginia. Records do exist. And some catalogs are in the hands of private researchers and museums.
In fact we know Mr.Joe C has found some Hazel Atlas records as he gives a number to this jar. That did not come from an advertisement.
We have a product identification number but in all the research in the last two years Tighar cannot determine a production date? I also haven't seen a makers mark photo, I haven't seen a catalog photo showing this bottle, I haven't seen really anything of the methadology or research that has been completed on one of the few "hard" artifacts Tighar has.
Why?
Therefore it is understandable that a scientist would be very skeptical, as would anyone without an agenda and with open logical mind.
Because even if you can prove AE used freckle cream, and you can show a freckle cream company used this style jar, it becomes irrelevant if the records show this style jar in clear glass was made during 1915-1920 for instance.
The date is everything. Then you can proceed to the ointments that used the jar during those dates. Then we can speculate if AE used it. That last link will likely never be proven of course.
But you have to start with a dated clear glass record. That would start making this jar "possibly" a relevant artifact. If You date it to 1930-1940, and we know of several facial creams and freckle creams that used it, then it's evidential value becomes higher than junk.
Without a date, or with a proven manufacture date of 1910 to 1920, it's just junk glass.
And really, just my opinion, there should have been no press release on this artifact until it was dated.