I wanted to follow up with some marvelous work Greg George did to research the history of Royal Specialty Co., the maker of the "Hair Dresser and Tonic" bottle (photos upstream in thread), which was put forward as an alternative identity for the artifact 2-8-S-2a. Greg says: "I have reason to believe the Royal Specialty Manufacturing company of New York was defunct by 1931, when the owner began selling radios, certainly by 1936. when the owner declared bankruptcy. If the found bottle was a product of this company, it can't have been made later than this. Meyer Eisenberg operated Royal Specialty Manufacturing Company in New York at least until 1924 (see below).
Eisenberg was selling Philco radios in a variety of locations as Municipal Radio Company in Brooklyn by February 1931.
http://www.newspapers.com/image/#57568877. According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of June 12, 1936, he declared bankruptcy in 1936. However, interestingly, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports on May 27, 1943 that Eisenberg was among those sending "shaving equipment" to servicemen for what appears to have been a Jewish service club. A December 28, 1944 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article shows that thousands of such gift packages were sent overseas, and Meyer Eisenberg was vice president of the club." Supporting clips are attached at the end of this post.
Greg deserves our thanks for that research.
This kind of diligence, which is commonplace in the bulletins and articles on this website, contrasts with the
Wikipedia article on Campana Company, stating, in a revision of May 15, 2012 (right around the time that research on 2-8-S-2a was becoming more widely known): "Campana Balm was carried by every U.S. soldier and serviceman to prevent or heal burns."
A few weeks later an Earhart reference was added to the article, which I removed since it had concluded without supporting evidence that Earhart was a "famous user." I left the serviceman comment in place even though it is equally unsupported.
This calls to mind former comments about TECTIC (the Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex). This forum and organization is often charged by its critics to be lacking in scientific rigor, with research that displays confirmation bias, working backward from an assumed line, conveniently finding things it needs to be true so that it can support its Nikumaroro hypothesis about the fate of Amelia Earhart. When I read things such as this Wikipedia article, however, I'm led to ponder just which side of the debate is more willing to distort a fact to suit its needs.
Judging by the number and type of criticisms employed, one might assume TECTIC was greatly disturbed by our research on glass artifacts. They needed to isolate each piece contextually and to discredit it. They would and will dismiss with fact-free generalities, employing a lesser standard of evidence for disverification than TIGHAR employs for verification. They are not content with the fact that a few servicemen could have carried Italian Balm with them. They needed to have every soldier carry it as ubiquitously as the c-ration. This desperation, as it has been called, is a measure of just how worried these folks have become that TIGHAR just might be right about its hypothesis.
Of course, a friend of mine, one who has been to Nikumaroro many times, on hearing my complaints, remarked that I shouldn't get too worked up by what I read on Wikipedia, since a lot of what may be found there is opinion rather than peer-reviewed research.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C