Joe thank you for the database and your articles, and excellent time consuming research.
My own opinion is that neither the "freckle cream" jar or the "campagna bottom" is worthy of an association with Earhart. Reading all 31 pages of this thread and all the reports has taken much time, but what is clear from all the input and hard research-
1. No clear jar of the freckle cream type has been located. We dont have one. Alan Harris looks like he and others tried hard to find one. The evidence from the manuals he produced saying this jar was only available in Opal is good evidence. So even if it was Dr.Berrys it looks like Alan Harris and Dave Burrell posted it was older than the 1930's. So if she was carrying it then it was very old.
I have a hard time picking up items from the pre 1930's and assigning them weight as evidence. First it has to be the right decade, then proceed from there, the freckle cream for me just is not evidence at this point.
2.The campana balm at least appears to not have the same dating issues. I can see from the research that this is "possibly" a womans lotion bottle. Mark Pierce found numerous advertisements in this thread showing Campana was NOT gender specific at all. Plus, after looking at 3 different laboratory reports over a five year period, I still see no confirmation it is even campana balm.For years this looks like it was called the "lanolin" bottle. It may have been best to stick with that.
Starting with the first lab report in 2007 there was lanolin and seed oil identified.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/Bottle/NikuVanalysisbottle.htmlThen it was sent to another lab, EAG labs, in 2011 for more research based on some smudges that Dr.Mass the first scientist did not deem important the first time around. Clearly from Dr.Mass' report the first time she found the lanolin and worm residue as being most likely the only residue. This overall five year process is best summarized in your original Notion of a lotion article.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htmLab two, Evans lab, tested actual campagna balm samples against the artifact. On pages 36-39 of the EAG report those graphs of the artifact don't match for Camapana. Despite the pronoucements of a consulting scientist, Greg George, the graphs don't lie.
We can speculate till the cows come home about contamination and degradation to try to make this artifact fit a campagna bottle.
The plain fact is the white residue found on the artifact does not match Campagna balm.
EAG labs did find Tragacanth gum they believed, a component of Campana based on secondary smudges on the artifact.
However while Campana had Tragacanth gum by 1957 at least, FTIR cannot differentiate between gums. Dr. Mass said that in her third and final round of testing to try to confirm what the second lab produced.
Quote-
"Figure 7, shown below, reveals a favorable comparison between gum Arabic and the
reddish residue in the Kiribati bottle. However, FTIR is insufficient to distinguish
between different types of plant gums, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry is
necessary to definitively distinguish between gum tragacanth and gum Arabic." end quote
All of Dr. Mass's final conclusions and reports are in an embedded PDF in the link on your notion to a lotion bottle.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htmShe seems quite clear on that. She was brought in for a third time to resolve the gum issues found at Evans lab.
So while in your question and answers to Dave Burrell and scientist Greg George resolve some issues, the basic problem remains. You have campagna balm examples, and per the graphs at EAG labs they dont match the white flakes found on the artifact. So the artifact bottom is Not a Campagna bottle.
Despite Greg George saying he feels the skat insect bottle will not match, due to the primary ingredients, and "long chain carbons", ect., I would test it, At least the bottle is same size and same markings.
The famous Freckle cream jar, I would forget about until you find a clear one from the same decade that does match. That connection is even more tenuous than the Campagna. At least Amelia may have carried a time period lanolin hand cream. (Not Campagna though)
Or just give up on both these bottles completely. That would probably be wise in the big picture. In researching these artifacts, I found a quote in June 2010 from ric, in the forum, and Michael Hall was on a thread called "helping to understand"
Ric said "Any artifact, taken by itself, can be explained away if you postulate an unusual undocumented event (i.e. a compact carried as a memento), but when you find yourself having to do that over and over when there is a single hypothetical event (i.e. an American female castway) into which everything fits, the maintenance of skepticism begins to appear more and more desperate." end quote
I think the reverse of Rics quote can also be true. It can be desperate as well to add a lot of meaningless clutter together and produce a pile and say "here look, can this all be coincidence?"
For the bottles and Jar, yes they are just coincidence. There are too many hoops to jump through to make them fit. They can be just coincidence and clutter.
I would put a lid on the Jars.