By way of clarification, I forgot to add a few more details.
The first phase of this new round began in July of 2012 to test for whether any surface mercury might be measured on the surface of the jar. The most recent phase of testing, this month, tested the composition of the glass itself. The final phase, ongoing, will be the controls I mentioned earlier.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Joe, you and EPAC has had this jar for two years and yet the first round of chemical testing began in July 2012 correct? Isn't it true that in those first two years there were no scientific testing? In fact the only research was to skim ads in old Sears catalogs and googling other glass publications and/or Ebay trying to find a jar that looked similar, and researching basic Hazel Atlas company information? In those two years you admit you found a copy of the National Druggist Publication showing solid proof this style of jar was offered in White ONLY by 1918. Is that not correct? Other copies of the same publication indicates that white was the only color offered after 1918.
It is not totally conclusive evidence, but it is strong evidence that by the time of Earharts flight, 1937, any bottles of this style jar would have probably been in white.
It is also true that you admit that most other style mid 1930's ointment jars you have found in your research are white. You have seen hundreds of mid 1930's ointment jars and they have been overwhelmingly white in color, correct? White was the popular color in the 1930's, and used almost exclusively in ointment jars, correct?
Therefore a clear ointment jar(like our artifact jar) was much less likely to have being made in the 1930's.
So why was that contradictory evidence you found, that did NOT support the Tighar theory, witheld? It was withheld from the media, general public, and Tighar members themselves. It is not as if you found several additional years when this jar was offered in clear. By your admission you had, and have no idea what DECADE this jar was made based on any publication in your possession, except that it was likely NOT mid 1930's based on advertisements from that period, and actual jars you viewed.
Yet despite all the evidence you had in your possession, arguing against a mid 1930's date, by the time of the early 2012 media blitz, this jar was called a 1930's jar by Tighar.
What is the point in EPAC if it is not to report the truth BEFORE the media is alerted? Is any one person responsible? "I just do my part, EPAC does their part, Tighar does their part".
It sounds to me this is an attempt to limit liability. If there is a question about an artifact's age and relevance, like the one being asked, the researcher can point to another person, or point at the media themselves!
The media did not invent the term "1930's jar", nor did they invent the term "Dr.Berrys Freckle cream", nor did the media go on every news outlet that would listen and proclaim that this jar fits what Amelia Earhart might have carried considering she had freckles.
The media had no idea of your or Epac's research, or lack thereof, they accepted the word of Tighar that this was a mid 1930's jar. Now if we would like to review Ric talking on soundbites about this mid 1930's jar, and how Amelia had freckles, I can provide that. I do not feel it necessary, as everyone heard the same thing. It went global, or viral as they say. Tighar called this a 1930's jar. Period. Long before Epac or yourself could prove that. True or not?
The reality is that you had no clue this was a 1930's cream jar, and TO THIS DAY do not know. In fact every clue you have, including the ND publications point to this jar being much older than the 1930's.
Is that true or not?While I look forward to even more research, isn't it the truth this jar was promoted by Tighar, with advice from EPAC, as being something it was not?
Which is confirmed by your recent statement to Alan Harris.
I agree with - and concede to - your statements about the different scenarios for what the ads meant when they omitted showing Hazel 1995. Your interpretation is well-considered.
So in closing on the issue of the media campaign conducted by Tighar, I find it pseudoscience to put it mildly and irresponsible is closer to the truth. This is history we are dealing with. The argument that it was done to keep public interest, before the public interest "wanes" you said, is not how a historical society should record history.History both oral and written should only be altered after the most careful eye and detail has been applied, and even then marked with words of caution unless multiple correlations are found to substantiate the claims.
History is not to be changed to fit a personal theory, and it certainly should not be changed with any variable being public interest and donations.
Yet on one hand you admit this jar's relevance was released too early, which is obvious, on the other you said EPAC and Tighar was being responsible in this release and content.
You cannot have it both ways. There was no fine line being walked here.
The information about this jar was released for one reason and one reason only, public "interest", and it was not just interest Tighar wanted from the Public. Read that how you will. It is the truth.
There is an ethical standard that must be applied, and if all the research you have by January 2012 did not substantiate, and in fact tends to disprove the connection to AE by dating, then that should have ALSO be presented to the media and not just in fine type at the end of a long memo to a producer.
To be safe, and avoid distorting the historical record, perhaps it should not have been released at all simply to generate publicity.
Tighar is a historical society, not a UFO watchgroup. It has a responsibility to care for history, not create it, and certainly extreme caution has to be considered when commenting and shaping public opinion as possible new historical artifacts are unearthed, documents found, research performed. There can be no role in altering reseach, or in this case omitting known research just to fit a certain theory or bias for the sake of quote "keeing the public interested".
Meaning in semantics, keeping the public interested in donating.
You mention in one note that there must be a control on the lab work to avoid the appearance of "haphazard" work.
I strongly agree!!
I think the history of this glass jar examination shows the very Haphazardness you speak of. What is told to the Tighar members varies day to day. We hear it second hand. We hear it from facebook pages. We hear Joe is examining the jar. No, correction a friend of Joes is examining the Jar. No, correction, some guy watching the discovery channel offered his services. No, correction we have hired another lab to do testing. Per Ric Gillespie at first there is no residue to test( see the start of this thread) for mercury, now we find another chemist that will indeed find mercury after 75 years laying exposed on an open atoll, exposed to reef bleaching elements, UV and Gamma Radiation, Typhoons, and an unknown amount of Water dilution...on and on.
When those results are questioned, and more importantly the jar research history continues to show it to be older than mid 1930's, based on its clear color, yet ANOTHER laboratory group has been hired for the purpose to determine the correct color.
Two years after it was found, and right when this jar was taking heat for being too old based on it's color in comes another chemist who will claim in your words, "it is neither clear, nor white"
That should cover all the bases!
This being a non profit historical society, in care of finding and documenting history, I find this ease of media announcements alarming. Glass artifacts were shown for publicity BEFORE any testing done with actual testing protocols. Now that they are starting to be conducted it appears to be amateurish and somewhat clandestine for purposes unknown. Some of this analysis is volunteer apparently, some professional and paid, and all of this latest research seems in direct response to quiet skeptics, not for the goal of historical accuracy. Otherwise why wait two years to begin? It almost seems like the pattern here is to release an artifact to the media, with Provenance unknown, date unknown, relevance to the Earhart case unknown. Just to Get "public interest". Then worry about finding a lab or scientist with a PHD behind their name to back the claims afterwards if necessary.In this case done only after several people object and provide documentation that contradicts the published original announcement. In two years no tests were run, I cannot emphasize that enough. Yet tighar, against it's own evidence, made darn sure the associated press thought a mid 30's cosmetic jar was found. Possibly containing freckle cream.
In the end run, I feel it only hurts Tighar's reputation no matter the outcome of subsequent testing, how this artifact was handled start to finish. It should be done with caution and by professional unbiased scientists in a timely manner, with a protocol defined in testing. Perhaps a politician feels differently, maybe not.( In edit, no I am not singling out Joe, I do not know his true role. It's been explained differently at different times. I didn't know of the existance of this EPAC, and I am sure I am not alone. But if there was an advisory group you were part of, and you had evidence this artifact was not 1930's, I would hope you shared that information with Ric and other researchers before the announcements were made on the major media outlets. Who actually made the call to say this was a 1930's jar, I do not know. Therefore I assign no blame or responsibility to Joe.) The responsibility ultimately lays with Tighar the organization to accurately describe recovered artifacts. It just has become increasingly hard to determine who is "calling the shots" so to speak, when it comes to media relations. If Ric wants to claim responsibility for the media release, I would ask why do it at all if Joe's evidence pointed to an earlier date?
Who exactly came up with the term "mid 1930s" is the big question. I know the why. In any event it was wrong to do without any documentation or testing. I'll leave it at that. I am glad some testing has finally begun at last.
I do wish Good luck with the new and improved elemental tests to prove the glass is not clear after all. It just looks that way. Black is white and white is black, into the looking glass we go.