Rafael, you contradict yourself. And I am just trying to make you see a point, not chastise or argue, really I am not. Some people get so wrapped in something that tend to make every little item fit their hypothesis.
You state it is not critical to know the date of this jar.
Then you state, well it might be important if it was made after 1937.
But you state if really doesn't matter if it was made in 1905 because "someone" had to leave it.
Talk about circular reasoning.
Then you start talking of PROBABILITIES of who would have left it, if it
dates early, say 1905-1915.
Well when you start discussing probabilties you certainly need a date to get the data to arrive at an accurate probability.
Therefore a date is extremely critical.
Lets discuss probabilties.
If it dates to 1911, we are down to few options.
1.The NC had it aboard, and it was another old bottle in an old tramp steamer no doubt full of junk. It could have then washed out or been taken by a survivor or a subsequent islanders. I am sure the islanders who were desperate for manmade materials got aboard that ship. To ignore this huge beached depository of possible canned food, mirrors, medicine, metal chains, on and on, there is a small probability they ignored this wreck and didn't strip it of everything that wasnt tied down. We don't need an injured seaman on the NC to bring it ashore. Those islanders looked at the wreck for decades, every day. they could have easily brought it ashore. The probabilies are hight they removed items.
2. thatanother way an early date jar could be there was we can have a previous castaway we know nothing about. There was also a mention of periodic crab and oyster fisherman on the island that predates AE. Remember this jar didn't just hold freckle cream. We have known exampes that it held cream called "skin food", and Vanishing cream among other creams.
I suspect the probability is fairly high another castaway or a fisherman left it behind after using the last dab of it. If I had a sunburn from oyster digging off a small boat in 1915, I don't think it's a large stretch to think someone applied a type of face cream to stop the burning. Remember this is was a non inhabited island. It doesn't mean people didn't use it. Big difference.
Hence the footprints and gun discovered by TIGHAR. We don't have a record of who was there, but obviously someone was using this island. Most probable its been used for decades before AE. For turtles, eggs, birds, easy to catch fish, clams...
3. It simply washed up. probable high-we know it happens all the time. It happened with the aluminum skin artifact. And it could have washed up from any ship that sailed pre WWI. The oceans are full of trash and in 1911, passenger lines, as well as merchant ships dumped tons of trash overboard.
It is a stretch to think some early 1st decade 20th century debris washed ashore? Not really. Actually it's probably what happened if this jar dates to pre WWI.
4. Last option, AE with her "flying laboratory" was using a facial product in a jar that was made 25 years earlier if we use the 1911 date. Don't you think she could afford a .25 cent new jar? Or she just preferred deteriorating old oily cream that probably wasnt in the greatest of condition by 1937. we would have to assume she took this ancient face cream with her or bought during layovers. We have to assume AE did not mind smearing this old deteriorating cream on her face. When every store held ponds, or noxema. scores of facial creams she could have bought for a quarter.
Which is unlike any woman I have ever met.
So there are the choices, Which is the most probable way it arraive on Niku if it was made in 1911.
It could have been left in multiple ways as suggested above.
AE carrying an ancient bottle of cream seems the most far fetched.
But impossible? No,not impossible. Improbable.
THAT is why it is indeed important to date this jar if possible. Because there is a huge new set of probabilties to an AE link if the jar was made 1905 to 1912, versus finding a catalog showing 17,000 jars were produced in this same style fromt 1932 to 1941.
If you cannot see the difference a date would make, and how a later date strengtens the probability of an AE link, and continue to claim a 1905 jar has thesame evidential weigh as a 1935 date, there is no sense continuing this line of talk.
You are denying common sense and logic.
Even Tighar understood the importance of locating the date of the green bottle made in 1933 in New Jersey.
The date is a vital clue.
In this instance, its extremely important.
Because nobody but extremists would argue that a 1905 dated jar has the same evidentiary value as a jar dated in 1935,
This is common sense.