any chance there were traces of mercury in the bottle??
Check your grandmother's medicine cabinet. We would very much like to find an existing jar of Dr. Berry's Freckle Ointment (http://tighar.org/news/) for direct comparison to TIGHAR Artifact 2-9-S-1.
A quick Google shows that there is an online forum of Hazel-Atlas Depression Glass collectors
Also, is there anyway to find and access the Hazel-Atlas books to see what other products might have been marketed in this particular jar design?
I called the agency. Carolyn Shamis died this past year but one of her employees is going to try to find out if her jar of Freckle Cream is still around. I'm sure it was one of the weirdest phone calls she has ever received but she was great about it and is eager to help.
cause the black container has chicago and Paris as its manufacturer
What is the status of this one? Have we found a jar of Dr. Berry's?
As it turns out, I've an associate I have known for about 20 years. All of the time I never knew it, but it turns out that he actually DOES collect antique jars and bottles. And it seems his collection is quite sizable and he apparently knows quite a few others with similar collections and interests. I recently have described the matter with him and he is quite interested.
Can anyone point me to everything we have on this one?
I'd like to print everything we have on this, along with all the pics, and pass it to him. Not sure how successful it will all be, but he is quite interested and 'knows the biz', as it were.
http://tighar.org/news/index.php?start=9 scroll down to "Help Wanted – Artifact Example" dated Thursday, 30 December 2010 10:30
I'm afraid I don't have time right now to assemble a complete report on the jar but the bottom line is this:
The artifact jar is clear glass
It fits in a Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream box
All of the known Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream jars we've found so far as white "milk" glass, but none of them fits in the Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream box.
So...there was obviously a Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream jar that fit in the box. We just haven't found an example yet. The big question is whether the jar that fits in the box was clear glass like the artifact jar.
Any example of a known Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream jar that is clear glass would be a big help.
What an exciting and tantalizing clue is this jar! I found my way to TIGHAR after reading the recent news reports.Things get manufactured before patents are issued so don't base too much on that date.
It appears that Hazel Atlas received a patent for their white glass in 1936. Therefore, Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream was packed in clear glass ointment pots at least until 1936 and possibly longer before switching to the white glass. This would explain the discrepancy between the found artifact and the example jars.
Would like to know more about that clear jar, when made, etc.
I come across this jar ? That is very similar except it milk glass.
Reason i have posted is because some one mentioned they could only find Dr Berry's in that type of jar
I'm hoping to find out about the origin of the clear glass jar on the left in this photo, not the milk glass jar on the right.
https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#5749211342029120626 (https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#5749211342029120626)
I'm hoping to find out about the origin of the clear glass jar on the left in this photo, not the milk glass jar on the right.
https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#5749211342029120626 (https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#5749211342029120626)
"...I think someone bought it to use as a comparison with the glued-together pieces which WERE found on Niku..."
"...I do have a very dim recollection, which may be utterly inaccurate, of someone talking about ink jars."
I do have a very dim recollection, which may be utterly inaccurate, of someone talking about ink jars. It seems to me that all of the fountain pen ink that I have ever had came in clear glass jars. I have no idea what kind of pens, if any, AE and FN would have carried and used on the flight.
I've never seen ink packaged in jars with wide mouths such as our found artifact.
I've never seen ink packaged in jars with wide mouths such as our found artifact.
Me, neither, now that I think of it. None of the three jars of ink I have here at home have mouths wider than the base.
Now that I do spend more time on it, I also notice that every ink jar I have...or recall ever having or having seen....also had a plastic or bakelite cap/lid on it.
I have a bottle of black Schaeffer ink with a metal lid on it. It is probably not more than 22 years old.
I much prefer plastic lids, FWIW. :)
I found this picture of a Scheffer ink container (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6038/6328514920_912efafa40_z.jpg) with a metal screwcap.
I found this picture of a Scheffer ink container (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6038/6328514920_912efafa40_z.jpg) with a metal screwcap.
The artifact seems rather over engineered to be an ink pot?
Why the aesthetic shape?
Why the thickness of glass?
If you are churning out and shipping tens of thousands or more a week wouldn't the cost and weight of the container be minimal compared to its contents, ink.
Why the fancy shape? a less aesthetic shape would be cheaper to produce.
It looks as though it was designed to catch the eye first, missing fancy label? contents were secondary.
Ink is ink, bought with cost in mind, I buy dozens of printer cartridges by cost, stuff the box and packaging!
Any thoughts?
When you've a spare moment, can you find the dimensions of the Dr. Berry's box we have?
This is the measurements I have Ric...Hope you were referring to me on this matter!!!
..........There were 7 products we know that were sold in these ointment jars. Dr. C.H. Berry Freckle Ointment is the only one of the seven that we know contained mercury. It is the only one likely to have contained mercury. I'd be interested in any discussion this might generate.
..........There were 7 products we know that were sold in these ointment jars. Dr. C.H. Berry Freckle Ointment is the only one of the seven that we know contained mercury. It is the only one likely to have contained mercury. I'd be interested in any discussion this might generate.
I knew there were a couple, but I wasn't aware we had found six other products. What are the other six?
tb
By the late 1930's vanishing cream was fading from popularity, as this link below states.( Not sure if the rules permit links here, but here is a little class on vanishing creams (http://cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/vanishing-cream.php)).
..........There were 7 products we know that were sold in these ointment jars. Dr. C.H. Berry Freckle Ointment is the only one of the seven that we know contained mercury. It is the only one likely to have contained mercury. I'd be interested in any discussion this might generate.
I knew there were a couple, but I wasn't aware we had found six other products. What are the other six?
tb
Hello, total newbie here and I hate to post a first post that is contradictory but there was more than one product containing mercury that used that jar type found on the island.
There is VELVETIN VANISHING CREAM. In fact their name is embossed in the glass in the botton of the jar I am aware of.
That was a 1930's product that used this exact same jar. It used mercury like every vanishing cream I am aware of.
It matches the found jar exactly except it too is milk glass.
So it appears that like today this ointment, vanishing cream(AKA freckle cream) was put out for different companies to sale in the same jar but with different labels. The hazel Atlas glass company apparently embossed a company name for some of their biggest buyers if requested.
So Dr.Berrys being just one freckle cream. Velvetine being another.
Which one would a lady of means prefer? We don't know.
That doesn't change that a vanishing cream jar was probably found on a deserted island.
What it does mean is that perhaps everyone jumped the gun a bit saying it is a Dr.Berry's jar. Every press report said a Dr.Berrys jar was found.
Perhaps very wrong.
It could have been another company marketing vanishing or lightening cream using this same jar. Some companies would have called it freckle cream. Some companies would have said labeled it spot lightening cream.Likely there were more than the two known companies, Velvetine and Dr Berrys using this jar.
By the late 1930's vanishing cream was fading from popularity, as this link below states.( Not sure if the rules permit links here, but here is a little class on vanishing creams).
http://cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/vanishing-cream.php
So a vanishing cream jar and it's implications was probably found.
To say it was Dr.Berrys is highly speculative since at least one other company( Velvetine) was using this exact same jar.
Perhaps it should be called the Vanishing cream jar, instead of the Dr.Berrys jar.
There would be no reason for this 1930's jar design to be on that island other than AE.
Ok now I am more confused.
Randy said of the 7 ointments known to use this jar, Dr.Berrys is the only known cream using mercury.
I said not correct and gave an example of another brand of lightening cream using this jar containing mercury. And amazingly it's ANOTHER BRAND of freckle cream.
Then Richie said Tighars stance was quote "What they have said is the only ointment pot they have found of same design is Dr.C.H.Berry Ointment, however up untill this moment we have not found a clear glass dr berry ointment."
But that totally contradicts the fact that apparently there were 7 other ointment pots of the same design. Not just Dr Berry.
So I am really confused about what Tighars stance is.
They know of 7 different ointments that used this same design but release a press release saying Dr. Berrys is the only one that matched the found artifacts design? Or is Tighar saying they know of 7 different ointments but Dr.Berrys is the only one containing MERCURY which was found on the artifact?(which is also incorrect)
In either example, regardless of clear or milk glass, that press release is incorrect.
I consider it fairly irrelevant whether a clear Dr.Berrys glass is available. We know they used clear at some point correct? Pre 1936.
I guess what I am getting at is what is Tighars stance at this point on this artifact given that there were at least 7 different ointments known to use this design. Including ANOTHER lighening cream using mercury.
If all 7 ointments using this jar contained various forms of freckle(lightening cream), it is solid evidence that this jar is extremely relevant.
There would be no reason for this 1930's jar design to be on that island other than AE.
If however 4 of the ointments contained lip balm or chapstick, the case for this being connected to AE becomes very much strained.
So the big question for me, is not milk glass versus clear glass.
It is what ointments were known to use this design?
So far on this forum, I have heard of two.
Dr.Berrys and Velvatine. Both skin lighteners.
What are the others? Who came up with the number 7 ointments used this design?
And what are those ointments?
Richie, I don't get the importance of clear versus milk.
It's the same jar.
A new form of milk glass Hazel Atlas made, patented in 36, and sat out on
an island for 80 years might not be opaque anymore.
Mine says VELETINE LIGHTENING CREAM in the glass.
...
Two known examples, though of a different color, of this exact height, size, and style of jar are found. And BOTH are freckle cream. For a fact.
Joe's subsequent research since the press release did not help strengthen the link to AE.
I'd like to answer that but I'm ignoring you!
LTM,
Dave
I apologize for that last post folks. even though it is true. But it was really mean and I've got to go to sleep tonight and I can't end my day like this. He asked a simple question and it really does deserve an answer. So please allow me to respond to this as an adult.
Malcolm, you asked " Do we have any direct evidence apart from the fact Amelia Earhart once mentioned her freckles at a publicity shoot that she was carrying freckle cream?" Honest answer..I don't know. So I asked the resident freckle expert in the house, my wife, who had used every cosmetic avaliable to cover her freckles until I told her they beautiful about 20 years ago. Her answer " would Noonan leave his sextant behind?" at two o'clock in the morning... end of conversation. I believe that says it all.
You have a great day Malcolm, wherever you are!
LTM,
Dave
Forgive me if I appear sceptical. :)
If I may-----In Amelia's personal effects in the states, at her home, was there a bottle of Freckle cream? Granted, all the principles of this mystery are now watching from above, but surely someone, would have knowledge.
You are forgiven, but what is your argument?
• Are you arguing that there is, as yet, no conclusive proof that Earhart died on Nikumaroro? If so, with whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that, with sufficient creative speculation, each piece of circumstantial evidence found so far may all be dismissed? If so - again - with whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that we should not mistake possible clues for established evidence? With whom are you arguing?
• Are you arguing that there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify further investigation and testing? If so, then you are welcome to earmark your contributions to TIGHAR for use on one of our other projects.
• Do you have an hypothesis about what happened to Earhart that you can support with better clues and evidence? If so, let's hear it.
As to myself and perhaps Ric and some others here and there, we have a strong 'pointer' in things-found like that, with others - and considering all observable circumstances, etc. Think of that - we are in stark agreement with Malcolm, actually - we know that had AE even owned a jar like that it would still not be proof that we found hers... but what a co-inky-dink, me thinks, that one turned up down there... it is an interesting thing, isn't it? I'd never heard of one before all this.
LTM -
Raf,
yes but no, something old can come to the island at a later date if it has been picked up as usable (as cosmetics or water boiling) it can only suggest that it has a starting point of production and availability.
Of course an alternative hypothesis is that Amelia had a 20 gallon drum of Dr. Berry's gunk in her garage and periodically re-filled her mom's favourite cosmetic jar with it for every flight. :) The point of my last post was that if the jar really does date back to the first decade of the 20th century, it's too old for all the known vistors to the island, not just Amelia. The dating of the jar is still important, but not critical to proving or disproving its connection to Amelia.
... we're told by the researchers that it was deserted until 1929.
Well it is the key if our suppositions that Earhart actually used the estimable Dr Berry's toxic freckle cream are correct, and we can find in our documentary sources that she was carrying this product on the flight. But there is more, we then must suppose that after the still quite hypothetical landing on Nikumaroro by the aviators, Earhart carried this jar of freckle cream ashore with her as the Electra slowly sank, with the sun, in the west.
and I would think that the manufactor at the very least did not realize the health issues associated with long term exposure to mercury.
I fully agree with you that the presence of the jar at the seven site does not prove AE's presence there, but my argument is that Don's adamant supposition that the age of the jar discounts this possibility almost entirely is equally mistaken.
Have we done any research on pre-Norwich City western visitors or shipwrecks in the vicinity? We are talking about a period that was reasonably well documented, if only for political or insurance purposes, from about 1890 to 1929.
You seem to think it is a stretch that of all things that she would bring her freckle cream ashore. I would suppose she like most women would have a bag of sorts that held ALL of her personal items that she would take with her at her numerous stops around the world to freshen up or what not. I would also suppose that her freckle cream would be in that bag just as Noonan probably had a shaving kit. It would also contain her compact, rougue, etc.
Mercury was found mainly in the freckle creams and skin bleaches ( correct me if there are other candidates).
... It was still there. Just because she may not have brought it with her on the Electra, doesn't mean she didn't leave it at the seven site for Ric ands his colleagues to find. I'm not saying she did, but we can't dismiss this possibility out of hand just by dating the thing.
... if this cream jar was made in 1905, however it got here, whether an old fisherman or just sea trash washed up, the probability is it has nothing to do with AE.
That is the most logical conclusion.
However it doesn't alter the fact that the dating of both the jar itself and the date of its deposition at the site are from an archaeological perspective unknown. There is no reliable relative dating and no certain date as to its arrival. Simply put it could have arrived at the island anytime from when the jar was first manufactured up until the time it was actually found by TIGHAR. Therefore any relationship to the hypothetical presence of Earhart and Noonan has to be determined by direct evidence linking it to them. So far that has not been achieved.
You need to look at it from the other side of the fence. NOT does it prove that she left it there, but does it DISPROVE that she left it there. It's a possibility due to the provenance of the item that it could have been something that Earhart would own due to concern about here freckles. It becomes a "possibility", enough possiblities can become a "probability". Even if they find the Electra there tomorrow when Ric writes his book "Amelia Earhart Mystery Solved" it still is going to be a story of what probably happened given the circumstancial evidence TIGHAR has collected.
Would it be adding a new complication to the 'ointment pot' story to find the Hazel-Atlas Company began to ship its products over to England by the year 1915? I’d tend to think this throws another healthy dose of suspicion over any claim that an “…American woman…” factors into the story of the jar.
------------------------------------------
The Washington Reporter Dec. 13, 1915, page 11
HAZEL-ATLAS CO. IS GOING AFTER FOREIGN TRADE
All Plants are Working to the limit
A.B.Paxton, Secretary of Company, sails tomorrow for England… The trip is the second within the past few months by Mr. Paxton. The first resulted in heavy orders for the Hazel-Atlas company, which is now exporting heavily to England. Practically every kind of product made by the company, except mason jars, is being shipped abroad…. The European orders have necessitated many enlargements and improvements in the various Hazel-Atlas plants… Another tank is also being prepared for the manufacture of opal ointment jars, to help out Hazel No. 1 factory, which is crowded with orders… Most of the product being turned out for foreign shipment is from stock patterns, although some is new mold stuff… ”
It also clearly suggests OPAL(WHITE) was the predominant pot by 1915
If one wanted to pursue this further . . .
"Manufactured in Opal Glass Only" . . . apparently 1921, at least, was not a banner year for HA clear-glass jars. Which further confirms what some posters have been saying, that opal predominated after the early years of the century. The jar on the extreme right seems to be the correct shape, but appears to have a number different from the "1995" previously identified (I can't quite read the exact number in the photo).
Also, in the top photo, another surprise: WHO KNEW that the Fountain of Youth, when finally discovered, would contain 12% mercury?
For several days now, many of us have dilligently been trying to solve what the ointment glass is made of. Joe Cerrnigila, has also gone to the trouble of having a test conducted on the quality content of the glass. Anyway, ran across this piece this afternoon. This indeed will help out!!!! Anyway, enjoy this!!!!
It backs up other references I found to 1922 those jars being white, and 1926 also being white. This ad backs it even further up to 1921 being white ONLY.This might be a good time for you to visit Vegas, it appears 20 years may be exactly right. HA's ads for 1920, 1919, and 1918 are identical to the one Randy showed for 1921. Additionally, with a clearer view, I take back what I previously said about a different jar number, the jar of interest is indeed labeled as No. 1995. The first attachment below is from TND Vol. 48 for 1918.
So like I said, the clear jar was LIKELY made in the teens, probably 20 years easily before Earhart could have landed there.
I also think that at some point in time that Hazel-Atlas might have been stealing someone's invention on the milk glass. Cause, why would you "patent" a milk glass jar when its already been invented by Ponds Cold Cream years before!!
The discussion is already moving past this, but here's a little more info. First, thanks to Randy for the excellent clue in Reply 175 that "The National Druggist" (TND) was one publication in which Hazel-Atlas (HA) regularly advertised. There are additional issues of TND available online . . .It backs up other references I found to 1922 those jars being white, and 1926 also being white. This ad backs it even further up to 1921 being white ONLY.This might be a good time for you to visit Vegas, it appears 20 years may be exactly right. HA's ads for 1920, 1919, and 1918 are identical to the one Randy showed for 1921. Additionally, with a clearer view, I take back what I previously said about a different jar number, the jar of interest is indeed labeled as No. 1995. The first attachment below is from TND Vol. 48 for 1918.
So like I said, the clear jar was LIKELY made in the teens, probably 20 years easily before Earhart could have landed there.
There is no HA ad in the 1917 issue of TND. However, for 1916 and earlier the ad is significantly different. Significantly in that instead of "Opal Glass Only" we find "Opal, Flint, and Amber Glass". (Flint glass is a high-quality clear glass.) Also the "No. 1995" jar is not shown, but I don't attach any particular significance to that. The second attachment below is from TND Vol. 46 for 1916. Earlier years, such as 1914, have the same ad.
So the cut-off for clear jars appears to be right about 1917. To be objective, I have not personally found/seen ads for every later year up to 1937, so I can't prove they didn't suddenly return to clear glass in, say, 1932 or something. But in my opinion the likelihood is very high that, if the artifact jar was originally clear and has not "faded", it was manufactured before 1918. Re the "fading", I am not a chemist, but from what little I've read it sounds like the additives used to produce Flint and Opal glass, respectively, are sufficiently distinct to be identified by analysis.
As a reminder, the data we have coming from the "Dr. Berry's" end of the problem is that that specific Freckle Cream came in jars in the shape of HA No. 1995 until 1933, and was in jars of a completely different shape by 1936.
When all the discussion is done it remains that the freckle cream jar, if indeed that's what it is, still has no proven provenance to Earhart except that once she is recorded as saying that she didn't like her freckles. Now while TIGHAR may not have encouraged the media's take on the issue this jar now is being billed as Earhart's with only a few obligatory caveats just to make it look like the reporters are being cautious. I am amazed that any organization would allow this story to have developed to this point because the truth is that the over-hyped media attention is making TIGHAR look faintly ridiculous. Mercury in the form of calomel (mercury chloride) was widely used in the many medicines and creams for treating everything from freckles, to whiten teeth, to stop bleeding, as a disinfectant, a laxative and as a widespread treatment for syphilis. It's purported presence in a jar found on Nikumaroro means very little given just how common its presence in patent and other medical products was. It comes back to demonstrating that Earhart used Berry's cream, demonstrating that she had it on the flight and also demonstrating that a patent medicine containing mercury which was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century could not have found it's way to the island by any other means and importantly in the form of a medicine that was not intended for use other than treating Earhart's freckles.
To be objective, I have not personally found/seen ads for every later year up to 1937, so I can't prove they didn't suddenly return to clear glass in, say, 1932 or something.
In reference to posts by Dave and Alan, found very interesting as to the "Flint" glass and jar No# 1995. If indeed this a special type of glass per say, such as flint or otherwise known today as "Lead Crystal". Wouldn't the scientists be able to conduct a ringtone test on the top of the jar. As I was searching references to Flint Glass I stumbled upon the fact that we now call it lead crystal today! So it would definately be interesting if Jeff would do this test or see if it can be done. Also, did a little test of my own and thought of something not thought of. But, let's say this was just anyones jar...and they were castaways...how long do you think the cream would last under those extreme temperatures. I found an old cream jar at the same antique store I found the box and set the contents inside on fire. The cream definately burned, but also turned everything to oil. Eventually, overtime, with heat and water and etc, the contents wouldn't last long! So, I'm believing that this jar wouldn't be a surviving mechanism if needed to be. If the pictures of temperatures on Niku are right, then there is no way that this cream could even survive. Just the jar!
Adam, nobody may have left it. The ocean is full of trash.
The Jeff I was referring too this afternoon was Jeff Cerniglia. I had asked him the question in regards to the photos shown. Does the jar have a beveled bottom edge in the middle...Really unique. Also, it is very slightly rounded un the interior, cupped as it were. I mean on the edge of the interior. The bottom of the interior, Anyway, look forward to see more
Adam and Dave,
Those accounts of possible ‘alternate’ castaways on Gardner Island are found in two articles published in 1924 and 1929 in the Auckland Star newspaper.
------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 1924, [page 9].
"The Phoenix Group"
"Isolated Pacific Islands"
“Somewhere about six hundred miles to the nor’west of the mandated islands of Samoa are the low-lying coral islands of the Phoenix Group… Gardner is the most southerly island, and as our ship nosed up to the anchorage, she was greeted by swarms of sharks… The island, unlike other coral islands of the Pacific, was heavily wooded by tall and stately trees, the timber of which, when polished, closely resembles mahogany. A dilapidated shack told of a probable castaway…”
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19241010.2.101&srpos=26&e=--1900---1938--50--1----2gardner+island--
==============================
Auckland Star, December 2, 1929, page 7
Aucklander’s Memories
“Gardner Island is well known to Captain William Ross, Auckland’s veteran mariner, who was ashore there 30 years ago, when he landed Mr. George Ellis, of Auckland, so that a survey might be made with view to establishing a coconut plantation…"
“…Many vessels were wrecked on Gardner Island in the old days, the survivors dying lonely deaths. Captain Ross found mounds above the graves of sailors when he visited the island 30 years ago, but the skeleton of the last to die was nowhere seen..."
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19291202.2.50&srpos=8&e=-------50--1----0%22gardner+island%22+wreck--
Yes very interesting articles. Is there part of the article about Capt Ross missing? I don't understand what is meant by "the skeleton of the last to die was nowhere seen...". Did he dig up the most recent mound and find it empty or was something cut out. This Ross was being interviewed in light of the NC wreck and was speaking of his visits 30 years or so before that time so any castaway/skeleton he was referring to would have been there in the mid 1890's at the latest. The dilapidated cast away shack in the 1924 story is much more interesting as it comes closer to probable dates for the Dr Berrys (or velvetine ) jar and the skeletal remains would be more likely to be found in 1940.
"...A dilapidated shack [that] told of a probable castaway…”, was found on Gardner Island, circa 1924.
"...the bleached remains of a human skeleton, housed in an old shack...", was found on Canton Island.
The bones of either the "probable castaway", or Capt Ross's un-seen "...last to die", circa 1899, can easily explain Gallagher's discovery in 1940. Maybe they were one and the same?
...and maybe not.
ahh yes. the "dilapitated shack" may well have been the tin roofed leftover from the coconut plantation
well, I'm not sure. Has the sextant box #'s been able to date the castaway to a certain date period?? I thought they were calling them surplus wwi sextants but I cannot be sure off the top of my head.
==============================
Auckland Star, December 2, 1929, page 7
Aucklander’s Memories
“Gardner Island is well known to Captain William Ross, Auckland’s veteran mariner, who was ashore there 30 years ago, when he landed Mr. George Ellis, of Auckland, so that a survey might be made with view to establishing a coconut plantation…"
We've found no record of wrecks prior to Norwich City - and not for want of looking - but we could have missed some. The American Exploring Expedition aboard USS Vincennes visited the island in 1840 and saw no wrecks. The mounds found by Captain Ross circa 1899 may have covered sailors but may also have been the graves of Arundel workers. In any case, sextant boxes made circa 1918 and products marketed to American women in the 1930s were not commonly available at the turn of the 20th century.
In short, there is nothing in these newspaper accounts that suggest an explanation for anything found at the Seven Site.
Well a hurricane might account for some of what was found at the 7 site. They tend to leave debris.
If you couldn't find it in the Ladies Home Journal or Saturday Evening Posts on different years...then how would a person go about finding it from state to state? I'm assuming this product wasn't that easy to come by. Any Suggestions???
I found no Ameliapedia article on this jar; perhaps there is an as-yet-to-be-published Tighar report of some type in the works?...
products marketed to American women in the 1930s were not commonly available at the turn of the 20th century.
Ok--looking at the photo Randy posted showing the marking on the bottom of the jar, I realized that what initially looked to me like Babylonian cuneiform actually was decipherable. Part of the mark looked like an 'A', not a very neat A, but an A, i.e., the letter 'Atlas' begins with. This web site (http://www.myinsulators.com/glass-factories/bottlemarks2.html) shows the Hazel-Atlas bottle mark to be a curved 'H' with a block-style 'A' between its legs. So, from the portion of the bottle in Randy's picture I think we are looking at the 'A' and the legs of the 'H'.
The web site I referred to by the way says that the mark was first used in 1923; if true, that piece of information provides a dating point for the jar that haven't seen discussed on this thread. The mark apparently remained unchanged for decades, according to another web site whose url now escapes me.
I am still curious to know how certain Joe et. al. are that the jar is style #1995.
Alan, here is an easy to find reference for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company that states "The Hazel-Atlas mark, usually placed on the back of the product, is an 'A' nested underneath an 'H'. The mark was reportedly first used in 1923, according to trademark office records quoted by Peterson (400 Trademarks on Glass)".
Also the mark is not distorted as shown in this reference.http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html (http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html)
Yes, thank you, I was well aware of the Wiki entry. Also Ricker Jones posted the exact same language from a different web site back in Reply 110. What I was discussing is whether Wiki/"Peterson" have it right, or have the entire story. Plus, it references the "trademark office", and I believe it is not unknown for companies to use names, and logos, before going through the official filing process. Anyway, IMO there is reason to question it, as other data are strongly suggesting that the jar is older than 1923. That's why I am hoping the official report now in preparation can untangle this for us.
Possibly we have different definitions of "distorted". As I look at Randy's photo "glass4.jpg", what we believe is/was a complete block letter "A" is not really recognizable as such unless you already know what it should be. John Kada's reference to "Babylonian cuneiform" is quite apt IMO.
Many companies would have design changes in their logo or mark over the course of years, however Hazel Atlas' mark remained the same from the early 1900s to the late 1950s.
Hazel Atlas was formed from a merger of two companies in 1902, they had produced fruit jars and utilitarian ware up to this point and in 1923 the Hazel Atlas Glass company began marketing dinnerware items. The earliest H over A mark was found on fruit jars dating to around 1910.
Here’s an interesting development-
Here’s an interesting development-
Two newspaper advertisements show that Dr. Berry’s freckle cream was marketed in the 1930s, not only in America, but also in New Zealand.
Here’s an interesting development-
Two newspaper advertisements show that Dr. Berry’s freckle cream was marketed in the 1930s, not only in America, but also in New Zealand.
The second ad here, with it's heading "Sunburn Creams and Lotions of Proven Efficiency", clearly supports the contention made earlier (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,748.msg17299.html#msg17299) that freckle cream was also used at that time as a sun-screen- by both women and men.
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19300104.2.170.1&srpos=7&e=-------10--1----0Dr%2e+Berry%27s+freckle+--
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19310110.2.167.61.1&srpos=3&e=-------10--1----0dr%2e+berry%27s+freckle+cream--
Certainly interesting and given that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands then that gives as an alternative origin for the freckle cream jar. In fact rather than clarifying the matter it adds an additional possible source for the jar - but was the product sold in New Zealand packed in the same type and colour of jar as the example from Nikumaroro.
Since no one has commented on my previous post today, I assume that either no one else has looked at The Auckland Star (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=CL1.AS&e=-------10--1----0--), or that no one else found it strange when, although this site contains the ditigal copies of this newspaper from 24 March 1870 to 31 December 1945 (23312 issues), only one ad is found for "Dr Berry's Freckle Cream" and one separate mention is made of "Dr Berry's Freckle Ointment".
What was interesting to me was how many "hits" I got when I went to this web site, PAPERSPAST (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast), located Auckland Star, and typed in "Dr Berry's Freckle Cream" or "Dr Berry's Freckle Ointment".
Assuming the artifact found is a Dr. Berry's jar.
That has not been proven.
What was found is an old jar, likely pre 1920 vintage,that once held
an unknown ointment, from an unknown company, purchased in an unknown country, used by an unknown person, for an unknown ailment.
although this site contains the ditigal copies of this newspaper from 24 March 1870 to 31 December 1945 (23312 issues), only one ad is found for "Dr Berry's Freckle Cream" and one separate mention is made of "Dr Berry's Freckle Ointment".
And there was a NZ survey team on the island in 1938 http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/generalreport.html while the freckle cream IIRC was sold as a anti-sunburn prep as well. There is another source for it.
BTW, have I asked you how long you've known David Billings?
What I meant by "unknown company" is that we do not know if this jar ever held Dr.Berrys ointment.
Of course it's Hazel atlas made, the glass is so marked, but who Hazel atlas sold it to, and who filled it with ointment, is the unknown company.
Unfortunately the jar did not come with a label.
I never said "the company that made this jar is unknown" but I can see where it might be read that way, so I just edited my Original.
My post should have been read "Unknown ointment MADE BY an unknown company."
It only takes one. ;)Quotealthough this site contains the ditigal copies of this newspaper from 24 March 1870 to 31 December 1945 (23312 issues), only one ad is found for "Dr Berry's Freckle Cream" and one separate mention is made of "Dr Berry's Freckle Ointment".
Doubt very much if one advert in 75 years and 23312 issues brought in many customers.
...Please provide your source for your statement that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands.
...And I will ask you again to please provide a source for your statement that New Zealand was in the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands colony.
Of course you know Harry Maude reported in his book “Of Islands and Men” that in Sept. 1937 he was, “…directed by Sir Arthur Richards, then High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, to lead a pioneering expedition to the Phoenix Group…”
The very same Sir Arthur Richards turns up again in a news-story published in the Auckland Star on Jan 4, 1938. Part of the text reads- etc., etc.
Ric- if you are claiming New Zealand was NOT part of the Phoenix Island supply chain, can you please explain why you believe that?
A few items, principally tobacco, also come from Fiji ..."
I recall seeing later accounting files showing invoices from vendors, all in Australia. I've seen nothing to indicate that the Western Pacific High Commission bought supplies for the PISS in New Zealand - but Malcolm stated unequivocally that New Zealand was part of the supplies source for the Phoenix Islands. Malcolm needs to either cite a primary source document supporting his statement or admit that he made it up.
How well TIGHAR knows: she's been many times, worked and looked hard and found new things each time, I believe. I further believe she has hardly scratched the surface so far - it's that big and complex.
Ric - you're snookered fair and square on this one. Please don't turn it into farce.
Hmmm...... what about the media reports about freckle cream jars, finger bones, debris fields. No wait don't answer, that was the media not TIGHAR - of course silly me. Tell me seriously why does TIGHAR release this sort of stuff to the media without doing proper due diligence.
It only invites criticism that in the end works against you.
Ric the jar could have come from New Zealand in a supply ship carrying cargo to the islands, or with the New Zealand survey party in 1938.
It is TIGHAR who made the claims about it being linked to Earhart not me, not the agents of some anti-TIGHAR conspiracy - TIGHAR itself.
Hmmm...... what about the media reports about freckle cream jars, finger bones, debris fields. No wait don't answer, that was the media not TIGHAR - of course silly me. Tell me seriously why does TIGHAR release this sort of stuff to the media without doing proper due diligence.
Pssst...Malcolm.....your agenda is showing. As I've shown repeatedly here, we're far more diligent in our research than you are in your sniping.
We operate with funds solicited from the general public and we have a responsibility to report our findings to our supporters.What we report to the media is accurate. We have no control over the headlines they write. I wish we did.It only invites criticism that in the end works against you.
Really? I hadn't noticed. The response from the media and the public has been overwhelmingly positive and TIGHAR membership has skyrocketed. Sure, reporting our findings invites criticism and there are those who seem determined to work against TIGHAR, but that's their problem, not hers.Ric the jar could have come from New Zealand in a supply ship carrying cargo to the islands, or with the New Zealand survey party in 1938.
Or it could have been carried there by a migrating swallow - an African swallow maybe, not a European swallow. All hypotheses are equal - right?
Re-stating a falsehood doesn't make it less false. We can find no record of a New Zealand supply ship carrying cargo to Gardner Island and it's obvious that the 1938 New Zealand survey party was never at the Seven Site.It is TIGHAR who made the claims about it being linked to Earhart not me, not the agents of some anti-TIGHAR conspiracy - TIGHAR itself.
Show me where we made claims that the jar is linked to Earhart. We try to identify the artifacts we find and we report the results of our research. Based on what we've learned and reported there are reasons to think that the jar may be linked to Earhart. You may not find those reasons compelling. That's up to you.
What we don't do is make up "facts" to support our speculation - which is exactly what you've done - repeatedly - and that crosses a line.
If the new Zealand survey team was anywhere on Gardner they could have left, or dropped, the jar and later someone ( piss? ? ) picks up the jar and carries it around with her for awhile and eventually discards it around the seven site.
Alan, here is an easy to find reference for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company that states "The Hazel-Atlas mark, usually placed on the back of the product, is an 'A' nested underneath an 'H'. The mark was reportedly first used in 1923, according to trademark office records quoted by Peterson (400 Trademarks on Glass)".
Yes, thank you, I was well aware of the Wiki entry. Also Ricker Jones posted the exact same language from a different web site back in Reply 110. What I was discussing is whether Wiki/"Peterson" have it right, or have the entire story. Plus, it references the "trademark office", and I believe it is not unknown for companies to use names, and logos, before going through the official filing process. Anyway, IMO there is reason to question it, as other data are strongly suggesting that the jar is older than 1923. That's why I am hoping the official report now in preparation can untangle this for us.QuoteAlso the mark is not distorted as shown in this reference.http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html (http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html)
Possibly we have different definitions of "distorted". As I look at Randy's photo "glass4.jpg", what we believe is/was a complete block letter "A" is not really recognizable as such unless you already know what it should be. John Kada's reference to "Babylonian cuneiform" is quite apt IMO.
If the new Zealand survey team was anywhere on Gardner they could have left, or dropped, the jar and later someone ( piss? ? ) picks up the jar and carries it around with her for awhile and eventually discards it around the seven site.
And, and, ... let's see... when they discard it at the Seven Site it breaks and then somebody decides to use one of the broken pieces to carve up a turtle because broken pieces of glass are obviously better than knives for cutting up turtles which the people who were there tell us they didn't do until they got the turtle back home to the village.
Personally I prefer the swallow hypothesis (African swallow, not European). .
If I recall correctly you stated that ae had a knife at the seven site, I believe you found the handles. It was surmised that she attached the blade to a spear for fishing. If the turtle was cut up by a piece of the jar it seems to me that it was done by some one else as ae would IMHO have used the knife you have inferred she had.
There is not one event that happened at the seven site that can't be easily explained without creating IMO a urban legend type story about ae living and hunting done at the seven site. Please name one event, just one, that you know that ae and only ae could have done at the seven site.
If I recall correctly you stated that ae had a knife at the seven site, I believe you found the handles.
It was surmised that she attached the blade to a spear for fishing.
If the turtle was cut up by a piece of the jar it seems to me that it was done by some one else as ae would IMHO have used the knife you have inferred she had.
There is not one event that happened at the seven site that can't be easily explained without creating IMO a urban legend type story about ae living and hunting done at the seven site. Please name one event, just one, that you know that ae and only ae could have done at the seven site.
Personally I find it somewhat of a stretch of the imagination to believe that, although only two ads for this product were apparently printed in these 75 years of this newspaper's publishing, we are supposed to take these two ads as proof this product was sold in New Zealand during the 1930s. Someone is going to have to come up with more than this to convince me.
Personally I find it somewhat of a stretch of the imagination to believe that, although only two ads for this product were apparently printed in these 75 years of this newspaper's publishing, we are supposed to take these two ads as proof this product was sold in New Zealand during the 1930s. Someone is going to have to come up with more than this to convince me.
I spent some time searching that site, and I noticed that quite a few keywords produce few results. I believe that not all articles have been indexed, especially advertisements.
What happens if you heat a white jar hot enough to partially melt it. Does it change color?
"...jar research strongly indicates that in the '30s the Berry's jar would have been white (opal) glass, not clear glass like the artifact jar, for which we have found no evidence later than 1916. If a New Zealand or Australian ad for Berry's from that earlier time period should surface it would have additional interest."
Of course she was 5 years older for the last trip and maybe somewhat more concerned about her appearance.
It may be from a "later period," but it is interesting just the same to find a New Zealand cosmetic manufacturer ran an ad in August 1942 asking readers to gather up USED cosmetic jars for recycling. The advertiser emphasizes their own brand and, “…similar products are packed in squat round WHITE OPAL jars” and adds, “All these jars are imported. “
I’d hazard to guess the primary world-wide exporter of all cosmetic jars in that era and before, was the Hazel Atlas Co.
Maybe the jar floated to the island as trash, ... direct from New Zealand. :)
...and are of small (3 ounce) size.
"...It has always been the aggregate of these things that gave us an idea of what went on at the 7 site."
"...who knows what 'markers' we may yet find?"
Would you agree the Campana Italian Balm bottle and the Mennen lotion bottle found at the site would also make good targets?
“…Campana Balm was carried by every U.S. soldier and serviceman to prevent or heal burns.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campana_Company
Here's an interesting bit of info related to the Mennen bottle- an ad from 1946- showing the same or similar logo found on the bottle fragment.
It is still too old a jar for the AE flight in 1937.
Well Ric, if the wholsaler catalog is correct the jar would be 20 years old if Amelia was carrying it with her. Yes, it's possible she used small dabs. :)
Or maybe she carried a good luck charm in it, who knows.
But a 1917 jar on a 1937 flight is not real hard evidence in my opinion.
Of course, to each his own opinion.
Is the wholesaler catalog an exhaustive source such that we can know from it that there are no other possibilities? I find that source interesting, but the conclusion to be a bit of a stretch.
Maybe she did use small dabs - I just threw out some old cologne the other day that was given me for high-school graduation several decades ago and tired of seeing the old thing that I'd never managed to use up. It sat there for years out of a certain fondness... some of us people are most peculiar about little things like that: had it had a more useful shape / open mouth I might have used it to store doo-dads, or for transporting shampoo or something like I do with other old, re-used containers now and then...
The jar is of course not real hard evidence - but it is indirect evidence of something, and it is something in-hand that can serve as a 'marker' consider where it was found, etc.
Yes, we may each have our own opinions, of course.
Maybe she did use small dabs - I just threw out some old cologne the other day that was given me for high-school graduation several decades ago and tired of seeing the old thing that I'd never managed to use up.Yes, but of all the things you could have chosen to take with you on an around the world flight, you didn't choose your cologne bottle because you weren't using it. IF Earhart did choose to bring freckle cream with her an obvious conclusion is that she did use it regularly so the contents of the jar probably did not last many, many years.
After studying the Freckle Cream jar the dimensions and look of the jar are consitant with the freckle cream jars manufactured of that time period. My only question is the color is different from the one recovered from the seven site as compared to an original version. Do you guys believe Amelia and Fred could off burned the jar on a camp fire thus discoloring it and than using it as a cutting tool?a campfire would not burn hot enough to change the elemental chemicals to clear. It would have to melt, and still would be white.
Well Ric, if the wholsaler catalog is correct the jar would be 20 years old if Amelia was carrying it with her. Yes, it's possible she used small dabs. :)I posted this before:
Or maybe she carried a good luck charm in it, who knows.
But a 1917 jar on a 1937 flight is not real hard evidence in my opinion.
Of course, to each his own opinion.
Googling's great and I guess we all do it - but we can only get from it what someone else has bothered to load into the net when we depend on it as a source.
- I'm just not sure we can get it by - "...More scientific googling"
- Unless 'scientific googling' means more work with folks who are expert in this area and who may have more information than Google can yield.
After the 1902 merger, Hazel Atlas continued their production of fruit jars and commercial food storage containers, as they had for many years prior. However, fierce competition in the fruit jar industry and a desire to expand the business, led the company to seek out other lines of production. This expansion had its beginnings in the early 1920s when Hazel Atlas would first produce, something that up until that time had primarily been relegated to the pottery and porcelain industry; A dinner ware line for the average homemaker. Not a line of elegance or superiority, not a line of notable decoration and style to appeal to the wealthy, rather a simple and plain line that the common housewife could purchase inexpensively and use everyday. This concept began in 1923 when Hazel Atlas designed and began production of what we know today as the Ovide pattern.[Emphasis added]
That year Hazel Atlas would be the first glass house in America to produce for widespread use, a colored transparent dinnerware, which today we refer to as Depression Glass. The Ovide pattern, which was originally produced only in green, would become the testing ground for the large majority of the Hazel Atlas dinnerware lines over the next 30 years.
Enjoying mild success from this first venture into dinnerware, other companies took note and began producing their own lines of dinnerware as well, only expanding the idea and adding in intricate patterns.
Hazel-Atlas Glass Company . . . has adopted and used the trademark shown in the drawing . . . for GLASSWARE – NAMELY, TUMBLERS, DISHES AND GLASSES . . . The trademark has been continuously used and applied to said goods in applicant's business since July 23, 1923 . . .[Capitals in original]
IF Earhart did choose to bring freckle cream with her an obvious conclusion is that she did use it regularly so the contents of the jar probably did not last many, many years.
I understood Ric's Post #267 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19595.html#msg19595) to say that the provenance of the jar, and the nature of its contents, are of small importance; the points being that the jar was somehow there for a castaway to find/use, and what the castaway then did with it. Maybe I am not "getting it", wouldn't be the first time. :)
Well I suggested that perhaps it was once more opaque and Ric said he talked with collectors who said that Milk glass would not turn clear. Never mentioned there were other milk glass examples that were practically clear to begin with. Case closed, and the reason we have all been looking for clear glass. Have we all been looking for a clear jar that never existed? Maybe.
So it appears this jar was either a very early pre WWI example or Ric's advice from collectors was incorrect, and it indeed faded to clear (maybe after being mostly clear to begin with). In fact one chemist on another article suggested just that. That milk glass made of tin and antimony would probably change color if heated in a fire pit.
I don't know. I am not a chemist, nor have I conducted heat tests on milk glass.
But I think it should have been done.
I think that is the only option left if this is to be a relevant artifact dated to the right period. Either it was weak milk glass that turned clear and could have been Earharts, or it was clear glass all along, and has no connection with Earhart as the bottle would be too old.
I do find these announcements made to the press too early to be concerning. For instance when it was first found, all newspaper articles said Dr.Berrys was the ONLY glass found that matched this jar. The implications was there. This was a Dr. Berrys. There was no mention of 6 other products. I didn't find that on any press release by any news agencies. I found that information here and by doing some quick googling in a week.
As late as last month, newspaper reports said that not only did this product match Dr.Berrys', it was the ONLY item found that contained mercury.
Again not true. I brought up Velvetine which was a skin lightener, and skin lighteners contained mercury. Same jar style, shape and size and also opaque.
Yet There is Breaking news, right now on this site, from Mr.Cerniglia that Dr.Berrys was the ONLY product that used this jar and contained Mercury. NOT TRUE! I am not sure if the theory is if it's repeated long enough it makes it true. How many times has he told this to some gullible reporter?
How many news stories have been done stating the same.
So the Mr C. is to this day putting out incorrect information in press releases and interviews possibly. Not good.
In the beginning of this thread it was suggested that the example be tested for mercury on any residue remaining. Ric said there was no residue to test for mercury.
So there is no residue, but finally 2 years later the glass is tested for mercury? If there is no residue, how can the glass itself show mercury?
Glass is inert, and I do not believe it absorbs the surrounding elements.
But it took all this time to test it?
And it was tested by a guy who just happened to hear the story and took it upon himself to do some testing?
I understand budget constraints, but seems like the artifact evidence is being analyzed haphazardly, if at all, some by volunteers who happen to read a news story. Some by Tighar forum members.
I think all the science should be done professionally, and an exhaustive search done for any clear bottles
, also testing to find whether an opaque bottle heated to near red changes color(not just relying on the word of a glass collector), and finally any other known examples shared with the public as well.
Like I said, I understand budget constraints, this is being done on a shoestring compared to the navy sponsoring Dr.Ballard, but It took Joe.C two years to find the above ad from National Druggist in 1921 that this jar was produced in opaque only?
I have been looking at jars for a week and found these same references in Google books.
So not to discredit Mr.Cerniglias work, he is probably working for nothing, but a lot of press releases were made that this was the only bottle found that matched this shape, now it's released to the public, Dr.Berrys was the only bottle found of this shape that had mercury.
It seems like folks wanted to believe something and released it as news, because neither of those press releases were exactly correct.
Now, like the movie JFK, the internet stories have been done with an incorrect version of the truth. you can't take it back. There are a lot of people out there who think that absolutely a mercury containing freckle cream from Dr.Berrys has been found with an exact bottle that matched the time of the flight.
Not proven. Do the science right, take your time, then do the press release.
Just my opinion and probably not a popular one, so shoot away.
I still believe Gardner is it based on the radio transmits, but this glass stuff was put out way too early before testing and exhaustive archive research and it creates a perception that may be invalid, and once that perception is put out there by NBC, CNN, Discovery, its tough to modify it.
Otherwise, if new information does come up, it looks like Tighar wasnt professional or thorough enough and raises credibility doubts.
(Not from me I hasten to add, but there are rumblings out there even Ric and Tighar members are keenly aware of).
Hello All,
This is my first post to the Amelia Earhart Search Forum. I should introduce myself briefly by saying I've been a member of the Earhart Project Advisory Committee for more than 2 years.
http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart_Project_Advisory_Committee
I'm pretty sure that Alan Caldwell is no longer an editor of the Wiki as stated at the above link.
I'm pretty sure that Alan Caldwell is no longer an editor of the Wiki as stated at the above link.
I created a lot of people as editors when I set up the wiki, hoping that they would, in fact, contribute to it.
Alan still has an account with editing privileges.
You should provide more evidence of your claim the jar could not have been made after World War I. The only thing a 1918 trade journal ad with opal jars proves is the jar was made in 1918. Any one-year source has little meaning for any other year.
The older it is, the lower the odds the castaway brought the jar, but unless the jar was made after spring 1940, those odds never reach zero.
To be more accurate, we have a continuous 5-year series of ads in that trade journal, from 1918 to 1922, that state "Ointment Pots . . . in Opal Glass Only". In 1917 that journal had no Hazel-Atlas ad. In 1916 and earlier, by spot checks, the ad says "Opal, Flint, and Amber Glass".Alan, I appreciate the research. I can find 3 ads that have been attached from prior posts in this thread. Two of them, which you cited, are on this page
The above addresses only the specific data with which I have personally been involved. I believe Dave Burrell may have additional information relating to production of opal and clear glass in the years between WW1 and 1935.
Additional ads for 1923 and later have not been examined to date because copyright restrictions apparently prohibit posting the full-text journal contents from those later years. This can be approached both by searching for other sources not so restricted and/or by visiting libraries to view paper originals. We are aware of several other journals and publications that carried Hazel-Atlas ads.
Could you please clarify the "spring 1940" as opposed to May 1937? I assume that is intended to include the widest possible range of arrival times for the skeleton reported to Gallagher (even though the bones appeared several years old when discovered)?
Mr. Alan L. 'Al' Caldwell
Current Member Status
Deceased
We're still finishing up analyzing our lab work on the artifact jar. We have the complete elemental breakdown of the glass that may tell us more.
I have to say I enjoyed Joe Cerniglia's rare posts here for reasons of technical thought and reasoned application, fairness and balance of approaches to research and publicity (realities for an outfit like ours) and spirit of common purpose. Suddenly I realize he's an example of one who's labored a great deal more than we tend to realize because he doesn't wade into this forum fray so much. In fact his first two posts seem to have only just appeared.
Bob,
Thanks for your interest. Greg George, a research chemist who works for a reputable aerospace engineering lab, has graciously volunteered to interpret our results free of charge and out of courtesy and regard for him and some others who are helping out I don't wish to release any information of that sort before he and they have had ample opportunity to complete their work and subject it to vetting from the EPAC.
I would caution, however, that while interesting results can often be obtained from this type of glass analysis, the Holy Grail that admits no room for debate - in any aspect of this Project - is very difficult to obtain. Having said this, the analysis is still, in my opinion, well worth doing.
Rest assured, everything will be made available as soon as we feel confident we have a better grasp of what we got, probably in a few weeks. We need to avoid any perception of haphazardness.
(Thanks for the encomium, Ric.)
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Joe, in my post you referenced (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg18376.html#msg18376), I was starting from Randy's post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.165.html) showing the 1921 ad and working backward, looking for the year that glass production changed from "Opal, Flint, and Amber" to "Opal Glass Only". In my post I stated that "HA's ads for 1920, 1919, and 1918 are identical to the one Randy showed for 1921". Literally identical, and it seemed silly to show multiple images of exactly the same thing. I have since looked at 1922 also, and it is again the identical ad. Hence my statement yesterday that there is a continuous series of the same "Opal Glass Only" ads for each year from 1918 to 1922 in The National Druggist. I don't quite see how posting the same picture 5 times would provide convincing verification, so I respectfully suggest instead that those who wish to verify for themselves may go to the web site where I saw them (http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000053564). Likewise for pre-1917, identical ads ran for several years and I imaged 1916 as a representative example.
Alan, I appreciate the research. I can find 3 ads that have been attached from prior posts in this thread . . . There are other ads mentioned, but not attached. For the sake of completeness, I think it would be useful that documents be attached. You're asking many people to take your word in citing these others. Even so, I'm certainly willing to believe you saw these, since I saw a number of these myself and remarked upon them to the EPAC in early 2011. There is another ad from December 1921 that Randy Conrad found . . . As of now, to the best of my knowledge from what I can see digging back into this thread, there are two verified drawings in ads from National Druggist that match the artifact jar in style. One is from 1918. The other is from 1921 . . . By applying this reasoning from Bill, we can say for certain that Hazel-Atlas, for all or perhaps part of these 2 discrete years, was offering the jar in opal (white) glass only.
Even so, I'm certainly willing to believe you saw these, since I saw a number of these myself and remarked upon them to the EPAC in early 2011 . . .That's very interesting, would you care to share your findings with us as to what years they covered and whether they supplement, or possibly contradict, what has surfaced here in the forum so far?
By pooling our efforts, we might be able to discover some facts we did not know before.
One of the ads, which has a file name stating it is from 1916, does not picture our ointment jar. A narrow interpretation of this particular ad might suggest they were referring only to those jars pictured, not to our ointment jar style.I understand what you're saying, however –and speaking for myself only– I find such a narrow interpretation much less plausible than that Hazel-Atlas was generally advertising their entire line of "Ointment Pots, Cold Cream Jars, and Patch Boxes". Had the pre-1917 ad been intended to refer specifically to the four jars shown, it would have given identifying numbers for each, instead of inviting readers to ask for the "Druggist's Catalog". And a much more telling sign of the ad's "generality" is that the illustrations do not even show a Patch Box, yet such Boxes are specifically included in the main header line. (I believe "Hazel–No. 2" in the other, post-1917 ad series is in fact a Patch Box.)
I have located and printed all of the Sears Catalog jars in a binder and have found this style of jar was not offered in the catalog after spring 1933.Throughout this exercise I have had to keep reminding myself that it is not known or proven that the artifact jar in fact contained the specific Dr. Berry's product that has been postulated. So for precision I suppose it best to say that Sears after 1933 was selling Dr. Berry's in a different style jar (see, e.g., the '36-'37 Fall/Winter Sears catalog page (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009227433;seq=697;size=150;view=image)) and, perhaps, sold no other product in Hazel-Atlas No. 1995 jars. But Hazel-Atlas might well have still been producing that style. I hasten to add that that does not in any way contradict your statement, I am just rehashing my own mental gyrations. :)
I have not had the time either to find and visit a library that would have these.I have in theory located a nearby source but, as luck would have it, those library collections are temporarily closed due to building renovations and relocation of materials. Maybe someday.
By way of clarification, I forgot to add a few more details.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.
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
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.
Black is white and white is black, into the looking glass we go.
Joe, you and EPAC has had this jar for two years and yet the first round of chemical testing began in July 2012 correct?No, allow me to enlighten. The jar went through at least 2 prior rounds of testing as I recall. The first was for lithic edge wear analysis, in January 2011. Dr. Geoffrey Cunnar, a scientist with knowledge of lithic edge wear, did the first round. The second was at Winterthur Labs in August 2011, for an evaluation of the gasket-like thread found nearby, and for an analysis of visible residuum on the jar itself. As I stated, we are not NASA, the CIA or even a general purpose chemistry lab. As of a few months ago, we did not even have a chemist on staff. We're not an academy or a university either. Most of the work is done by volunteers who care. A small amount is contracted, but since services often cost money, I don't think this should be surprising. I fail to understand the obsession with how long this takes. Are you saying we withheld information too long, and then in the very next sentence we don't wait long enough? I'm thoroughly confused.
Isn't it true that in those first two years there were no scientific testing?See above. I fail to see why the answer matters, however. What if we had waited? Just as an example, it took 58 years or so for the discovery of the bones to be re-discovered by a TIGHAR researcher in archives. It's been 75 years since Earhart's disappearance. You're surprised it's taking a long time?
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 but one copy of the National Druggist Publication showing solid proof this style of jar was offered in White in 1918 is that not correct?
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.I don't recall sending you our personal emails. Did you read them? I've already stated that the media didn't get this perfectly correct the first time. I'm not aware any information was withheld. The media is working on it. So are we. We live in a society with a free press. This allows them to be excellent, or as the case may be and budgets allow, not so excellent at all times. I assume their good intentions. So should you. It's one thing to make an unsupported allegation about data. It's quite another to make an unsupported allegation about people.
Neither I nor anyone else here ever made any representation to the media or anyone else regarding certainty about the dating of the jar. Our research does not rule out a 1930s association. Does that imply we know more than we actually do?
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 publicatioin in your possession.
"We think it MAY have been from the 1930s," may have been said somewhere, by someone at some time. People interpret things all the time. We're only human, after all. I highly, highly doubt that anyone with an I.Q. above 70 would have said "it's a 1930s jar." This is an allegation you have made that you must support.
Yet despite all the evidence you had in your possession, by the time of the early 2012 media blitz, this jar was called a 1930's jar by Tighar.
The truth? The truth? What is the truth? I once wrote "the truth is" in a paper in college. I think the grade received was C-, and I was publicly called out for that in the class. And what I said was "truthful" was probably a pretty vanilla statement. We don't have a monopoly on truth. Things are debatable. It's debatable what I had for dinner 3 nights ago. We're seeking to understand, so far as we're led to be able to understand, what became of Amelia Earhart on July 2, 1937 and afterward. Do you really think we're ever going to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" on this event? The standard you set is so high as to be unbelievable. This does not mean we have one particle of reckless disregard for truth and truthful things. But this is not your point, anyway. Your point is we lied or misled. I don't always know what's true, but I know the allegation in that previous sentence is untrue.
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".
Were I to take credit for all the research here, I would be properly guilty of the untruthfulness you cite, would I not? Nor would this be fair to all those who have helped me, and who have far surpassed my efforts in this regard.
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.
I suggest you look up all the definitions of the word "media." The media mediates, some more than others. It may be a 1930s jar; the evidence I'm looking at is more suggestive of that idea than what you've probably seen. Again, TIGHAR never said it definitively was, not ever, and still probably will not ever. If you want to argue about how it "cannot possibly" be from the 1930s, that it "is" definitely from World War I or prior, that's another argument entirely. I assume that's next. We have evidence that would dispute that logic. I won't be presenting that until I'm done with all of the research.
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.
I've been pretty attentive to the media stories, probably more attentive than I even should. I have noticed no such exaggeration coming from us. If you have such evidence, it's time you showed it. Statements such as "Earhart is known to have been concerned about her freckles," are statements of demonstrable fact.
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?
Do you really believe I am so unintelligent as to make statements of fact I know can be disputed two seconds later?
The reality is that you had no clue this was a 1930's cream jar, and TO THIS DAY do not know.
It absolutely COULD be. My EPAC emails may even have some paragraphs in which I myself took this position, for the sake of argument. But, no, we also have a body of evidence that suggests it could also be later than the "not later than" the World War I date you have cited in earlier posts. I'm putting that together, and it will take time. Would I like to be more thorough in that than the media have had occasion to be? Certainly. And would I think that an even-handed approach, highlighting all the arguments, including the Forum's ought to be included? Absolutely.
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?[/b]
My quote to Alan Harris was to congratulate him on conducting more detailed research into the question of Hazel-Atlas advertisments for the publication and time frame in question than I had had time or initiative to do myself. There are other areas of research in which I am sure he would grant me the same, as is the wont of fellow researchers.
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.
Others could give better insight on the organization than myself, but I would say, from observation that we're not a historical society. We're a team of folks interested in responsible aircraft preservation, archaeology and research that has become involved in the most compelling instance of that subject we have found. I find the historical accusation to be lacking. History is not one person's idea of the truth. History is what people write. It's a subject of debate, a work in progress. I think it can take care of itself just fine without any help from TIGHAR. I don't see the argument that we've duped history in the interest of public interest. I just don't see it. (History, by the way, seems to have done a pretty even-handed job in reporting the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. I don't see them rushing to judgment in any sense of the word.) You give us much more power than anyone really has.
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,Again, false. I think the timing was just about perfect. I never said otherwise. I said TIGHAR seeks a balance and generally strikes the correct balance.
on the other you said EPAC and Tighar was being responsible in this release and content.Yes, TIGHAR was being responsible in this release and content. I cannot be more in agreement.
You mention in one note that there must be a control on the lab work to avoid the appearance of "haphazard" work.You expected TIGHAR to make one final and unimpeachable announcement? I suppose we could all disappear into a cubby for 20 years and then come tell you what we found? That is an organizational model. I just don't see how it works with the setup we have. Nor, as far as I can tell, do any of my fellow members. I'm not idealistic about this at all and don't know what good idealism would do. It's like wishing for a bus to come at 8:30 when it's on an hourly schedule.
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.
This being a non profit historical society, I find this ease of media announcements on unproven theories, artifacts shown for publicity BEFORE testing done, the actual testing protocols, to be amateurish and to some clandestine for purposes unknown. Some of this analysis is volunteer apparently, some professional and paid, all at different times over a two year period in apparent response to questions on the jars age. 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.That is not finding and documenting existing history.I believe the scientific method, again, can be messy. It's conducted by humans, with flaws and, don't forget, strengths. The timing of the lab work is purely based on how much we know and when we know it. We act upon what we know as soon as we know. I for one have not hesitated to test that which I knew to test, once I knew what could be tested. I think the same could be said for anyone else here.
Perhaps a politician feels differently.You are saying this without even the slightest knowledge of who I am.
We live in a society with a free press. .......{snip}........ I assume their good intentions. .....{snip}
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
Bill, thanks for the suggestion, but as one who spent years working to learn the craft and working with members of the press, I have to say, they're a fine group of people overall. Only my opinion, of course. This isn't about press griping, it's about ensuring we are all honest and fair with one another and toward each other.
Quote...as one who spent years working to learn the craft and working with members of the press, I have to say, they're a fine group of people overall.
OK, Bill, now I have to admit - Joe may be a politician after all... ;)
Also, bear in mind, that when we speak of a "switch" from flint to opal, or opal to clear, we may not have all the facts. Was it an irrevocable switch? Could switches ever be reversed back? What are the reasons? The last thing I want is to be coy here, but we are, as you say, rehearsing these scenarios.
Let me add that we're not at this point dismissing any possibilities. When the report comes, however, it must, I think, suggest probabilities, to the best that we've been able to interpret them.
Mark and Alan...Wanting to know what your guys expertese is on this particular vile of Freckle ointment? This particular vile was found in a antique store in the town I work in. It was found the same day I encountered the freckle cream box as shown throughout the net. Anyway, this particular vile had two different locations for a manufacturer on the side of the jar. New York and Paris??? If this is the case...then why wasn't there a listing for those two that I posted the other night for manufacturers from the Hazel-Atlas Company. Maybe its possible that this jar came from another source overseas. I have to agree with Alan...that we wont get anywhere until we have a listing of bookwork, sales records, and etc. Anyway, give me your insight...thanks!!!
Alan...Thanks for the catch. I do apologize for that mistake. It was Chicago!!!! Sorry bout! However, I don't know off hand if that small jar has hazel-atlas stamped on the bottom of it. I sent that on to Ric. It is of a milk-glass content! I'm really puzzled by the Paris thing though!!!I would not be puzzled. Its probably just marketing and making up exotic sounding cities to put on the label. Paris has been a high fashion culture center for 100 years. Of course any American maker would want to put the words Paris on a cosmetic bottle. It attracts women. Perfume makers and cosmetic designers to this day love to put the name paris on their products.
If the Hazel-Atlas jar did in fact contain freckle cream or a cosmetic skin lightener of some kind, I believe it’s time to seriously consider it was a Kiribati woman who brought it to the island, rather than Amelia E.
....... (one fragment bouncing to where somebody cut up a turtle).
Just curious - are there still turtles on the island?
Also, "In the many weeks of archaeological work in the regularly-inhabited parts of the island..." did you find remains of any other turtles?
So if an I Kiribati women had said jar why was it found where it was found and why was it associated with other diverse objects such as a jack knife, buttons, zipper pull and the remains of camp fires, bird, fish and turtle bones.
For me the thing I am missing is the recent TIGHAR research which due i'm sure to Rics Hurculean schedule this past year has just not been sifted, sorted, graded and put out for the hungrey forum members to devour. I just love the snippets that come from TIGHAR central when the debate hots up.
Good stuff and the EPAC insight is appreciated. Can you advise as to how the likelihood of a 'castaway association' among certain of these items was determined, other than by the articles being at the site?Thanks Jeff. You and the rest can easily see why it's easy to get carried away and I don't intend to do that. What I'm saying is that I can cite you reasons why the putative castaway is one of the possible associations for certain of the artifacts. By no means does that mean I'm saying it is the only association. Also, a "no" in my database does not mean that there are no conditions you could imagine under which another group of people could be associated with this item. The database I've set up is merely a convenient way to discuss it, a shorthand if you will.
I can see from the attached spreadsheet that some of those 'castaway' items bore evidence of being in the fire, are of the right era, etc. which suggests someone was doing something with them in a fire at some time, and that they could possibly fit a castaway situation. It would be interesting, however, to understand what trait was found in common among those articles (possibly 6?) that would support an association with the castaway more strongly than the likelihood of some other use, or another means of arrival and deposit at the site.
From what TIGHAR know about the coastguards, how likely is it?
Ric, I keep an old compact mirror in my guitar shop tool kit... not sure then just what your comment might suggest about me... ;D
QuoteAbout as likely as Terry-the-Transvestite to explain the gender-specifc artifacts
Lets not open that debate up again please ;D
Gentlemen, there is still a huge problem identifying the Campana’s Italian Balm bottle as “gender specific”
Sorry, but I don't see how TIGHAR"S claim, "Campana Italian Balm, and hand lotions in general at the time, were marketed solely to women," holds up under scrutiny.
Wow, nice piece of research, Alan.
Ric, the quotation Alan references is from the Research Bulletin I wrote in February. True, the source should have been cited.
How is the Date Code "3" on the bottom of the Campana jar known to represent "1933" and not "1943".
Potentially silly question, but if one never asks, one never learns... I did not find the answer in any Google searches of tighar.org.
How is the Date Code "3" on the bottom of the Campana jar known to represent "1933" and not "1943". I did find some debate online of when Owens-Illinois switched from 1-digit Date Code to 2-digit Date Code, but did not find a definitive answer to the question for 1933/1943 years.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/03bottlebottom.jpg
Thanks in advance.
Richie...I don't think so. I believe the one Joe was telling me about was on the www.worthpoint.com website!!! According to this website, the jar actually has freckle cream still in it!!!
On the other, other hand there are no mosquitoes on Niku. I don't know exactly how that affects the probability a Coast Guardsman intentionally brought insect repellent there. He may not have known what to expect in any case.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
2 oz. insect repellent appears to be part of the standard "Kit, Jungle, Medical, Individual, M-2" which was supposedly "supplied to each soldier fighting in jungle areas". Would it have been also issued to the Coast Guard?
Recent correspondence indicates that an insect repellent is being provided for all units in the South Pacific.
Hi All
Gary's thread about Earhart pistol, On the link, There is an article near the bottom of newspaper with an interview with Noonans wife and it say's she owned a beauty parlor is that correct ?
If so surly she would know what cosmetics Earhart carried with her an there use.
Have Tighar Interviewed Noonan's wife ?
Did you win the auction?
Did you win the auction?
Yes, I did. I'll get some photos up of the base of the bottle of Skat Insect Repellent as soon as I can. It occurs to me as well that if the Niku artifact bottle is a bottle of Skat, the makers of Skat would need to be supplementing the 1943 bottles they are known to have used in its earliest confirmed year of production - 1943 - with other bottles from 1933. The odds of this happening would appear to be vanishingly small.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
I think the question is whether Owens-Illinois might have used an outdated bottle mold base plate in manufacturing. One can easily envision the following scenario: the factory, in an effort to fill a sudden large bottle production order for a military contractor, uses an old mold base plate from the factory storeroom until time could be found to modify the date code on the mold. In that scenario, a large number of bottles could have been manufactured with incorrect date codes until the mold base plate was updated.
The idea that the artifact's date code is incorrect - and thus was supposed to have a period after the 3, indicating an actual production date of 1943 - is always a possibility, but it seems unlikely to me.
But, demonstrating that Earhart brought the bottle raises another challenge against the razor, I suppose - but we do seem to have a 1933 bottle(?).
I believe that you have attributed Albert Einstein's paraphrase of Occam's Razor to Occam himself.
Did you win the auction?Yes, I did. I'll get some photos up of the base of the bottle of Skat Insect Repellent as soon as I can. It occurs to me as well that if the Niku artifact bottle is a bottle of Skat, the makers of Skat would need to be supplementing the 1943 bottles they are known to have used in its earliest confirmed year of production - 1943 - with other bottles from 1933. The odds of this happening would appear to be vanishingly small.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
I believe that you have attributed Albert Einstein's paraphrase of Occam's Razor to Occam himself.
If so, I'll apologize to both Occam and Einstein, but you'll need to document your allegation.
Ric, you should not have to apologize to either.
Here are a few more 2oz Insect Repellent bottles that might be worth investigating. Both bottles appear to have the 85925 patent with the O-I mark without a dot visible by the rightmost digit.
Ric, are there any mention of insect repellents in these cargo manifests?
Remind me why we're doing this. We've already matched remnants of the bottle's contents to Campana Italian Balm.
(I would, by the way, add that with Mark Pearce's analysis of the ads from Canada targeting men for Italian Balm and a few sparse American ads from the 1930s touting the benefits for the family, I would not mind if the research bulletin I wrote on the lotion bottle be amended to read that Campana Italian Balm, and hand lotions in general in the 1930s and 1940s were marketed mainly to women. Previously I had said exclusively to women.)
In a half day spent e-mailing a few online bottle sellers, two different 2oz Owens-Illinois "DES PAT. 85925" bottles were found that didn't match the supposed marking and dating scheme for O-I bottles. I suppose each person can decide for themselves how that affects their opinion, if at all.Joe reports in "Notion of a Lotion" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm)- "We were also able to locate a bottle, sans label, that matched this style."
Joe reports in "Notion of a Lotion" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm)- "We were also able to locate a bottle, sans label, that matched this style."
What about size? Does artifact 2-8-S-2a match up with the dimensions of the 2oz Owen-Illinois bottles? We know they were used to bottle Skat insect repellent during WW2, but are there any print ads, radio commercials, etc., that would suggest Campana Italian Balm was being distributed in these same 2oz bottles around the year 1937?
In a half day spent e-mailing a few online bottle sellers, two different 2oz Owens-Illinois "DES PAT. 85925" bottles were found that didn't match the supposed marking and dating scheme for O-I bottles. I suppose each person can decide for themselves how that affects their opinion, if at all.
I'd like to hope for DNA on some of this stuff still, but to borrow Joe's own phrase in a similar circumstance, it seems the odds of that after all this time are 'vanishingly small'. :(
Ah yes Jeff, oh for that bit of touch DNA be it Mitochondrial or Nuclear that could link Earhart to the artifacts. 'vanishingly small' may be an understatement by Joe.
In a half day spent e-mailing a few online bottle sellers, two different 2oz Owens-Illinois "DES PAT. 85925" bottles were found that didn't match the supposed marking and dating scheme for O-I bottles. I suppose each person can decide for themselves how that affects their opinion, if at all.
I guess the question is why would you email bottle sellers of Owens-Illinois in the first place?
(I would, by the way, add that with Mark Pearce's analysis of the ads from Canada targeting men for Italian Balm and a few sparse American ads from the 1930s touting the benefits for the family, I would not mind if the research bulletin I wrote on the lotion bottle be amended to read that Campana Italian Balm, and hand lotions in general in the 1930s and 1940s were marketed mainly to women. Previously I had said exclusively to women.)
If the artifact found on Niku is truly part of a Campana Italian Balm bottle, how can we be sure it didn't belong to Gerald Gallagher? There is clear evidence Gallagher owned at least one bottle of skin lotion during his time on the island.
Your jar is a style that was used as packer jar for various items (e.g. jelly, ointments, paint). The milk glass jar can easily be hazel-atlas as they did not mark all their wares.
There is clear evidence Gallagher owned at least one bottle of skin lotion during his time on the island.I had been noticing that about a year ago, and yes, it bothered me, too. Maybe our British readers could tell us whether "skin lotion" was the way one referred to after shave. That would be convenient if it was, but I don't know if linguistically that is true.
All the Campana Balm bottle labels and nearly all the advertisements I've seen pitch the product as the "Original Skin Softener". The product was marketed not so much as a hand lotion, but as a general skin lotion.
To Joe Cerniglia, if you are interested in pulling the reigns on this project, I would be most happy to hand them off to you with all the data I have collected and the contacts.
There is clear evidence Gallagher owned at least one bottle of skin lotion during his time on the island.I had been noticing that about a year ago, and yes, it bothered me, too. Maybe our British readers could tell us whether "skin lotion" was the way one referred to after shave. That would be convenient if it was, but I don't know if linguistically that is true.
The email was simply to several bottle sellers on Ebay and Etsy to ask for a photograph of the bottom of the bottle they were selling so we could have a look at any markings on the bottom. That was all.
Campana's Balm was used as an aftershave lotion in the 1930s by men here in the USA. I think it's safe to say men in England used it for the same purpose. Gallagher probably went through a lot of 'aftershave/skin lotion' while he was on the Island.
His guvmint kept a lot of records - might there be more about Gallagher's where-with-all buried somewhere?
I'll check the file (we have lots of stuff from the WPHC records that is not yet digitized).
Jeff, let me say first of all that your research on the Skat is probably some of the finest work I have seen in my association with TIGHAR. When Robert Ballard spoke of putting his students "through the ringer," in the State Department's announcement of Earhart Search 75, he surely had someone such as yourself in mind. I can't compliment this work enough.
In the fall of 1937, Campana Italian Balm was listed in the Sears Catalog in 3 sizes, 29c, 44c and 79c. File attached. We don't know the ounce sizes. Attempts to find all three sizes today from sellers to compare have not been successful.
The Oshkosh Northwestern | 22 Nov 1934 | 2 oz. | (might be old square bottle) |
The Oshkosh Northwestern | 31 Jan 1935 | 2 1/2 oz | (also in July, Aug. & Nov. 1935 ads) |
The Hammond Times. | 18 Jul 1935. | 2 1/2 oz. | |
The Clearfield Progress. | 26 Sep 1935. | 2 1/2 oz. | |
The Hammond Times. | 21 Nov 1935. | 2 1/2 oz. | |
Chronicle Telegram, The (Elyria, Ohio). | Feb. 10, 1938. | 2 oz. | (Drene offer ad) |
Reno Evening Gazette. | March 16, 1939. | 2 oz | (savings matrix-type ad) |
The Clearfield Progress. | 16 Mar 1939. | 2 oz | (matrix) |
The Hammond Times. | 28 Mar 1940. | 2 oz. | (matrix) |
If we have the found bottle, what can be the mystery about the size of the bottle?
If we have the found bottle, what can be the mystery about the size of the bottle?
All we have is the bottom. We know from the patent number that the bottle is an "Imperial Oblong" and we know that they came in many sizes including 2 oz. and 3 oz. but I can't tell which size our artifact is by eyeballing the bottom. The best way to identify an artifact is to find a known object that is identical to the unknown object. What we need is an intact Imperial Oblong of the same size as the artifact bottle.
Joe Cerniglia said his 2 ounce skat insect repellent bottle arrived and it was a perfect match. Therefore Joe Cerniglia determined a few days ago that the skat bottle bottom and the artifact bottom matched.
Don't we already have a chemical analysis of the content remnants on this article?
well i do not believe the chemical analysis conclusively matched campana. I believe Joe said the artifact had lanolin. Campana did not have lanolin.Don't we already have a chemical analysis of the content remnants on this article?
Yes, and it quite conclusively matches Campana Italian Balm. I've never really understood all the fuss about Skat.
Here's a few more Insect Repellent bottle bottoms showing use of 85925 bottles on different brands. They are being sold as WWII items, but cannot be sure if they are WWII-era.
Eveready: (looks post-war to me)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25860
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32981.jpg
Gaby Brand: (can't make out the logo but says DES PAT 85925)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25850
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32956.jpg
This one I can't make out, looks right shape but don't see the DES PAT:
Skat
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25844
Pond's Brand Repellent apparently used some Hazel-Atlas jars of roughly the same shape.
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25865
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/dsc06703.jpg
Here's a few more Insect Repellent bottle bottoms showing use of 85925 bottles on different brands. They are being sold as WWII items, but cannot be sure if they are WWII-era.
Eveready: (looks post-war to me)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25860
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32981.jpg
Gaby Brand: (can't make out the logo but says DES PAT 85925)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25850
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32956.jpg
This one I can't make out, looks right shape but don't see the DES PAT:
Skat
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25844
Pond's Brand Repellent apparently used some Hazel-Atlas jars of roughly the same shape.
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25865
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/dsc06703.jpg
Yep. Greg George saw them too. Here's his message:
From: Greg
To: Joe
Subject: other insect repellants in the same bottle
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:16:12 -0500
National Carbon and Allied Product (label unreadable but mfr. inferred from my research) sold insect replellant in the exactly the same bottle. Many companies were recruited during the war years to make the large quantities required, and so as not to have all the eggs in one basket.
http://fishingcollectables.com/images/
###
There is a hive of activity about this behind the scenes. Much more to say soon.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER
The key to the jungle repellent bottles is do they match the artifact in size obviously, and would the dried remains match the graphs from the Evans lab charts in all aspects. If the white flaky remains in the artifact match bug repellent then that is pretty strong evidence.
From Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of commercial products, 1957, the following ingredients are listed:
2-ethyl hexanediol-2, 3: 20%
Alpha, alpha-dimethyl-alpha carbobatoxydihydro-gamma-pyrone: 20%
Dimethyl phthalate: 60%
A screen print of the relevant page is attached. Gleason's is the same book used to verify the ingredients in Campana Italian Balm. Both EAG Labs and Jennifer Mass at Winterthur Labs thought it authoritative enough to cite in their own reports. These reports showed from lab testing that both the remnant on the artifact bottle and Campana Italian Balm contained Tragacanth Gum.
As it turns out I was dumbfounded to learn that the man I thought invented this freckle ointment, was not Dr. C.H. Berry but W.B. Forsyth. As shown. W.B. Forsyth invented Kremola in 1905 and sometime around 1906 must have invented Freckle Ointment.
Randy, as you seem to enjoy these historical curiosities, you might also like to know there was an Ella R. Berry (a lady) that sold cosmetics and perfumes from the turn of the century into the 20's and 30's.
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.
1920's jar of freckle cream dropped overboard by one of the pleasure cruises around gardner Mark Pearce documented.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.
Logically, if my quote is true, the reverse of it cannot be true.
The artifacts exist. Joe's research has made a case for what they are. If Joe is wrong, then some other explanation must be right. If you can come up with a well-researched and documented alternative explanation that holds up better than Joe's I'm sure Joe (and I) will gladly embrace it, but dismissing artifacts by saying, "They can be just coincidence and clutter." doesn't cut it.
1920's jar of freckle cream dropped overboard by one of the pleasure cruises around gardner Mark Pearce documented.
1940's skat bottle, refilled by an islander with hand lotion.
Yes Mark posted 1920 advertisements for cruises around gardner. It is in this thread.
They were not exactly concerned with the ocean then. So some freckle cream is used up and dropped overboard. A few typhoons and decades later Tighar finds it.
That explains the freckle cream jar nicely. How a 1920's jar got on gardner.
Where would an islander get hand lotion? They were not totally primitive, far from it and they did even have a hospital. That could get lotion there in bulk and refill an American skat bottle. They reused american discards as tighar has documented. Or a coast guardsman could have refilled a skat jar with hand lotion and took it hiking during some alone time. There are countless possibilities.I remember when one field search produced 67 pairs of panties. Strange stuff gets out there. These jars are not even strange. Common house items from anyone. During flooding these jars could be pushed anywhere, such as the seven site. Or maybe the coast guardsman applied his last bit of handcream there looking at the ocean. The possibilities are so numerous it is mind boggling.
"So ended our wonderful cruise amongst those wondrous reef-bound Pacific coral islands of green woods, cocoanut palms bracken covered stretches, all clothed just as nature made them, and marred only by the grim tragedies of those whose ships strayed shoreward."
Papers Past, the Phoenix Group (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19241010.2.101&srpos=26&e=--1900---1938--50--1----2gardner+island--)
Wow, how did I miss that before? They had quite a time, including a stop at Gardner for gosh' sake.
Joe thank you for the database and your articles, and excellent time consuming research.Glad we cleared that up. You of course know that I think these things are shouting Earhart almost as loudly as she appears to have done in the post-loss radio signals TIGHAR has deemed "credible."
My own opinion is that neither the "freckle cream" jar or the "campagna bottom" is worthy of an association with Earhart.
1. No clear jar of the freckle cream type has been located. We dont have one.News flash: The jar isn't clear and never was. I have the lab report showing it and will explain, as I've said, as soon as I can get a chance to say what the lab learned and how we interpreted it. I cite this not as "evidence" that the jar was freckle cream indeed, but as evidence that there may be additional facts that you might not have observed while otherwise occupied disverifying.
Alan Harris looks like he and others tried hard to find one.We live in a very blase' age regarding history and historical inquiry. We think that the past is transparent to us, that an internet search or a museum inquiry can clear up our questions. Sometimes it can, but the past, even yesterday, is quite a foreign country. Prior to the 1930s, especially with regard to bottles, glassware was used to destruction. During the Great Depression, according to Bill Lockhart, "less was made; less was sold; less was used." It should be little wonder that certain items are unobtainable or very difficult to obtain.
The evidence from the manuals he produced saying this jar was only available in Opal is good evidence.Our bottle expert Bill Lockhart states this is not true. A manual for any given year saying what style of glass was used was valid for that year, and maybe not even that long. We can argue this if we wish, but when an expert says something this definitively, it usually means there are other experts who are also willing to take the same position. It doesn't mean by definition they are right and you are wrong, but you would need first, I think it is only fair, to state how many glass catalogs in cold dim library stacks have you strained your eyes to read?
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.The concept, I will grant, sounds strange today, but back then people held on to things for much longer than today. Again, remember the Lockhart Principle: Used to destruction, or unsold.
I have a hard time picking up items from the pre 1930's and assigning them weight as evidence.Assigning weight as evidence is an individual endeavor. Your freedom to think and assign these weights is what makes this discussion interesting and enjoyable. I would defend your right to do this.
First it has to be the right decade, then proceed from there, the freckle cream for me just is not evidence at this point.I can see this is a sticking point for you. Bear in mind we still don't have the decade in hand. We think it's the 1930s and I will reveal why later, but that's unlikely to settle it.
2.The campana balm at least appears to not have the same dating issues.You're kind to say so, but you'll see from my paper that we have some ambiguities here, which I freely admit.
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.Quite possibly, we need a new terminology. Gender-indicated? Gender-prevalent? Something to indicate that at most places and times a bottle with a woman on the label would have been used most often by a woman. Canada, I know, at times had a different marketing plan. And maybe the U.S. at odd times did as well. But I've seen a lot of distortion of the evidence here. And no one has taken me up on the need to listen to the radio broadcasts of First Nighter, heard by millions. Radio was the PRIMARY vehicle of advertising for this product. (I have an attachment from a period radio trade journal to back this claim, but it's too large to post.)
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.Here is how the scientist from the first lab, which initially did not find a close match to Campana, viewed the report from Dr. Mass and my Lotion bulletin, once he'd seen it:
Starting with the first lab report in 2007 there was lanolin and seed oil identified.Dr. Mass was making no judgment of the brown remnant's value by not testing it. The purpose of the original testing was materials characterization, NOT materials identification. Identification at that point was still a very distant prospect. TIGHAR wanted a general description of the characteristics of the remnants. An exhaustive one probably did not seem necessary or financially prudent at the time.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/Bottle/NikuVanalysisbottle.html
Then 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.Picking apart the length of time the process took is like going back to the 1950s and criticizing the cars people drove for not having anti-lock brakes. It took some time to develop these refinements. So it is with all scientific research, so far as I am aware.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm
Lab 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.You put far greater stock in your interpretation than in the scientists'. The EAG scientists (Lab two) never received the artifact to compare. They only received Dr. Mass' spectral measurements. It was only when Dr. Mass had both bottles to compare that the full extent of the similarities revealed themselves.
We can speculate till the cows come home about contamination and degradation to try to make this artifact fit a campagna bottle.Again, one must understand, this isn't like pouring some hand lotion into a vending machine and 20 graphs come out all perfectly proclaiming the match. It's taken a large amount of detective work to figure this out.
The plain fact is the white residue found on the artifact does not match Campagna balm.
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.Let's look at the coincidences:
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
Or just give up on both these bottles completely. That would probably be wise in the big picture.Now I know you must be pulling my leg! It may not be possible to persuade you of other notions than what you have determined. Of that, it may be "wise" to agree to disagree, but I at least think the questions implied in your statements are legitimate ones to be asked. I'm taking a lot of time in answering them, but you also took a lot of time in composing your list of reservations. Thanks for the opportunity to try to address the concerns.
"So ended our wonderful cruise amongst those wondrous reef-bound Pacific coral islands of green woods, cocoanut palms bracken covered stretches, all clothed just as nature made them, and marred only by the grim tragedies of those whose ships strayed shoreward."
Papers Past, the Phoenix Group (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19241010.2.101&srpos=26&e=--1900---1938--50--1----2gardner+island--)
Then everyone can decide what a bottle of Campana balm is worth as evidence Earhart landed on Gardner Island.Tom,
Cruises,both private and military, to and around Gardner is not laughable. It is a historical fact.
I can't help you there Joe. I have never testified a chemical is of a certain type in a courtroom. You perhaps inferred a lot about my background that is not correct.This is an honest answer, Tom. I think we're getting somewhere here. I can see where you are coming from. Frankly, if Campana were a person on trial for being a hand lotion, I could not guarantee just how that trial would turn out. That's the justice system, and it's an honorable system and you should be proud to be a part of it.
I can't run or calibrate a spectrometer or interferometer either. That was handled by the state lab boys. Now, I did learn to read a graph in middle school, and it's just my personal opinion your FTIR results don't come close to meeting any reasonable burden of proof. But that opinion is as a layman. I am no chemist or analyst. Also, most of my cases involving spectroscopic techniques were drug cases, and there was rarely a court challenge on those deals.You got a hard job, and would just keep working on it if you really believe this jar held Campana balm. I do not for reasons stated previously, I'll leave it at that. PM if you want to talk cop to cop or want some advice on which path to follow. I'll try! Haha.
Cruises,both private and military, to and around Gardner is not laughable. It is a historical fact.
I saw no "advertisements for pleasure cruises" as you alleged. There is one newspaper article describing a cruise (not cruises) around the Phoenix Group in 1924. There was no mention of what ship it was or why it went to the Phoenix Group. The article says that the islands are "seldom visited." The shack mentioned is almost certainly the abandoned Arundel work shack from 1892 that is known to have been there and visible. Several visits to the island by naval vessels over the years are well documented. None of the visits, naval or civilian, including this one in 1924, account for what has been found at the Seven Site.
Which is basically how can one rely on bones as evidence when there were quite a few drowned men nearbyIt depends on what you mean by nearby. I'd estimate more than 4 miles from the Norwich City to the Seven Site, but that's only a guess and may be corrected later by someone more knowledgeable who has walked it. The island can typically be more than 100 degrees, so walking can be tiring. I believe survivors stated (in the source I linked for you) that the port of Apia had been reached by radio prior to evacuating the ship. They knew help was steaming toward them. They were not - unlike our putative castaways - marooned. So why wander over to the Seven Site? Remember, also, anyone exploring that far has to walk all the way back for a rescue. The Board of Trade interviewed all survivors, and none reported such an excursion. They were very specific about where their movements placed them, and why. As for the drowned men, one needs to assume at least one who didn't suffer the injuries or exertions that drowned his friends, swam around the entire length of the island to the Seven Site, survived long enough to eat animals from more than 1,400 fish bones, did some odd thing heating 1930s liniment and beer bottles to purify water, then made no attempt, having accomplished this feat, of re-contacting the comrades he knew were on the island who were at the spot 4 miles away, where rescue by the S.S. Trongate was nearly assured. For what it is worth, an eyewitness to the bones, Gerald Gallagher, who was charged with the upkeep and safety of everyone on the island in 1940, stated "There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the 'Norwich City.'"
, jars that could have come from multiple sources,If you speak of all the glass artifacts, yes, as a set more than one glass item could and probably did come from a non- castaway source. There is a Coke bottle we are nearly certain came from the Coast Guard. If we accept however, that the human remains were not likely to be from the Norwich City, it's highly likely the owner of some of the bottles, perhaps the majority of the bottles, is the castaway. There is very little likelihood you can ascribe a pre World War II beer bottle and liniment bottle both burned in a fire AND a bottle whose remnants are ingredients "consistent with its having been used as a lotion or skin cream bottle" (Mass, Scientific Analysis of Fine Art, 2007) AND a jar strewn with mercury, but only on the interior, which just happens to have the same shape as a freckle cream jar, which also contained 12% mercury (EAG, 2012) AND a Benedictine bottle to anyone else at all times except under any circumstances to the individual whose bones were lying not more than a few feet from that region, along with, yes, the 1,400 fish bones, AND lots of other strange artifacts, including a jackknife smashed apart for the blades, a compact full of rouge, a mirror from a compact, AND an assortment of other strange and twisted objects bespeaking someone with technically advanced materials such as lucite.
and campfires. It ain't evidence of a castaway when there were timber cutters nearby and their debris and fires might be a false trail.We must remember Niku isn't a forest reserve in the Maine woods or a campground on Martha's Vineyard. The timber cutters, so far as I can see, we're there briefly for minor ship repairs. Most ships, so far as I can see, weigh anchor off the stern of the Norwich City so as to provide a stable point from which to launch boats into the current for a landing. Again, that's a long way from the Seven Site. These industrious loggers, these rough and ready men, hauling off the entire forest of Kanawa from the island, aren't likely to have had rouge and a compact.
In my view the best evidence Tighar has is George Putnam. A close relative is a good source of accurate information.I agree. Search "Earhart's mother kept suitcase" in the Books section of Google and you'll see what one close relative thought her daughter would most want to have nearby if she ever should re-appear.
Until another plane part is found, those two are it for me. Which is not a lot.I share your hope more will turn up and am glad you haven't given up hope. I know your standard of proof is high and my ramblings are unlikely to sway you. We have, as you point out, tried hard to do everything possible to figure out what the artifacts are and who brought them. You may not give much credence to what you read here, but I know your interest level is high. Thanks for your scrutiny.
The timber cutters, so far as I can see, we're there briefly for minor ship repairs. Most ships, so far as I can see, weigh anchor off the stern of the Norwich City so as to provide a stable point from which to launch boats into the current for a landing.
The manager of the company, Captain Allen, "made several visits to Gardner for the purpose of cutting and loading timber for ship repairing but no other use was made of the island."This sounds not like a quick pit stop to cut a tree and patch a leak, but more like cargo loads of wood being cut and hauled off for use in boatyards. In those days of "manual labor only", Captain Allen might well have had sizable work crews occupied on Niku for several days per visit.
Timber cutting visits!This agrees with my own impressions gleaned from long-term reading of articles and posts that: (a) of the available indigenous wood species, kanawa was the most suitable for ship/boat structure; and (b) kanawa was neither plentiful nor universally distributed over the island. (My "impressions" are of course not facts.)
Kanawa is a good 'hard wood' tree and certainly good for shp repairs.
Buka and Ren are softer wood, less likly candidates?
If Kanawa was the tree of choice puts them in the vacinity of Kanawa Point and The Seven Site unless these areas account for whats left on the islands from those expeditions.
The Seven Site is the narrowest part of the island that was habitable. Historical photos show that in 1937 it was open kanawa and buka forest.
These industrious loggers, these rough and ready men, hauling off the entire forest of Kanawa from the island, aren't likely to have had rouge and a compact.I don't see that Tom anywhere claims either deforestation or that the loggers would be responsible for all the artifacts including cosmetics . . . c'mon now, let's keep 'em above the belt . . ?
I read the passage to mean they were repairing their own vessel. Perhaps this minimizes it, but if you are going to camp out there, you'd need to make use of a great many things on the island. The article states, "No other use was made of the island." I spent a good hour of my time attempting to locate the source of this article to read in its entirety. Does anyone have the source link? When were the loggers there?The timber cutters, so far as I can see, we're there briefly for minor ship repairs. Most ships, so far as I can see, weigh anchor off the stern of the Norwich City so as to provide a stable point from which to launch boats into the current for a landing.
The logging has been discussed before. I imagine Tom was relying on items such as the following:The manager of the company, Captain Allen, "made several visits to Gardner for the purpose of cutting and loading timber for ship repairing but no other use was made of the island."This sounds not like a quick pit stop to cut a tree and patch a leak, but more like cargo loads of wood being cut and hauled off for use in boatyards. In those days of "manual labor only", Captain Allen might well have had sizable work crews occupied on Niku for several days per visit.
What kind of timber?Timber cutting visits!This agrees with my own impressions gleaned from long-term reading of articles and posts that: (a) of the available indigenous wood species, kanawa was the most suitable for ship/boat structure; and (b) kanawa was neither plentiful nor universally distributed over the island. (My "impressions" are of course not facts.)
Kanawa is a good 'hard wood' tree and certainly good for shp repairs.
Buka and Ren are softer wood, less likly candidates?
If Kanawa was the tree of choice puts them in the vacinity of Kanawa Point and The Seven Site unless these areas account for whats left on the islands from those expeditions.
Further as to location:The Seven Site is the narrowest part of the island that was habitable. Historical photos show that in 1937 it was open kanawa and buka forest.
All the above suggest to me that Tom's speculation is not completely far-fetched or unreasonable.
Finally,These industrious loggers, these rough and ready men, hauling off the entire forest of Kanawa from the island, aren't likely to have had rouge and a compact.I don't see that Tom anywhere claims either deforestation or that the loggers would be responsible for all the artifacts including cosmetics . . . c'mon now, let's keep 'em above the belt . . ?
What sources and quotes support Amelia's concern about her freckles? I found only the one on Google.The quotation you cite above is the best of all of them. It comes from Earhart's only sibling, Muriel Earhart Morrisey. Morrissey wrote a biography of her sister, "Courage is the Price" in which she (as Dillon's primary source) references the ticker tape parade incident, wherein Earhart complained of the sixty more freckles on her nose she would receive if she removed her cloche.
From Amelia: A Life of the Aviation Legend, by Goldstein and Dillon. This refers to the New York ticker tape parade after the "Friendship" flight: "As photographers snapped, several spectators, eager for a glimpse of the famous bob, sang out 'Take off you hat, Amelia!' She made a little face, but obligingly removed her modish straw cloche. Tossing it to Muriel, she remarked ruefully, 'Here's where I get sixty more freckles on my poor nose, I guess!'" (page 62)
Are there other quotes I can search for. Thanks.
Heck...even to this day...you can walk in the Smithsonian Institution (Air and Science building) and find a squadron of young ladies desperately fighting for the chance to learn about her. So I truly believe the woman carried some form of cosmetics with her. Yeah, she may have not used these all the time...but in public she was an admiration to many women. Especially the young ladies of our future.
Joe you know as well as anyone how a word or two changed from a quote makes a big difference in meaning in the whole.You state that in preparation for her 1928 flight, Amelia Said she typically packed a tube of cold cream for cracked lips as part of her "irreducible minimum" of cosmetics." You, quoting Earharts letter.
That is not what the letter states. In fact she never mentioned the word COSMETICS at all. She said she was carrying an irreducible minimum of TOILETRIES.
In fact the letter states she did not worry about appearance on the flight, "the men do not", she said. Nothing was ever mentioned about one single cosmetic. Cracked lips can cause infections and discomfort, a toothbrush is to avoid tooth and gum infections and decay, and a comb is necessary to keep hair out of her eyes. Tissue to wipe away fluids no doubt. That was her "irreducible minimum of Toiletries"
So yes, she was a woman. She cared about her skin. She also inferred she wasn't worried about it during the fllight record you referenced. Maybe she did an about face, and brought a full makeup kit on her last flight. On her 1928 trip, she was clear there was no cosmetics.
Yes, you're right and I expect the same applies to all posters, including those that reply to me.Joe you know as well as anyone how a word or two changed from a quote makes a big difference in meaning in the whole.You state that in preparation for her 1928 flight, Amelia Said she typically packed a tube of cold cream for cracked lips as part of her "irreducible minimum" of cosmetics." You, quoting Earharts letter.
That is not what the letter states. In fact she never mentioned the word COSMETICS at all. She said she was carrying an irreducible minimum of TOILETRIES.
In fact the letter states she did not worry about appearance on the flight, "the men do not", she said. Nothing was ever mentioned about one single cosmetic. Cracked lips can cause infections and discomfort, a toothbrush is to avoid tooth and gum infections and decay, and a comb is necessary to keep hair out of her eyes. Tissue to wipe away fluids no doubt. That was her "irreducible minimum of Toiletries"
So yes, she was a woman. She cared about her skin. She also inferred she wasn't worried about it during the fllight record you referenced. Maybe she did an about face, and brought a full makeup kit on her last flight. On her 1928 trip, she was clear there was no cosmetics.
If you are going to be critical of what others say, at least please try to have your own information correct.
Jeff N wroteQuoteI have to confess that I really respect Dr. Tom King's summary view of what was found there regarding context, etc. and the possibilities (in his publications - wisely not posted in this forum by his august hand - which I well understand now)
Jeff is these on his blog or other places? Links please :)
Incidentally, just by coincidence, AE graduated from Hyde Park High School in 1916 while living in Chicago. Hyde Park is 7.3 miles (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=104+state+streets+chicago+to+hyde+park+chicago&ie=UTF-8&ei=r3OrUIODIuyu0AGC_IGoBQ&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA) from Dr. Berry's offices as listed in 1893. The C.H. Berry Co. headquarters was later opened at 2975 Michigan Avenue, only a 4.6-mile walk (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=104+state+streets+chicago+to+hyde+park+chicago&ie=UTF-8&ei=r3OrUIODIuyu0AGC_IGoBQ&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA) from Hyde Park.
I do not take any of this to be more than a coincidence. It wouldn't establish anything of substance; it's just curious.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
What should we make of that?
gl
However, Given that a 2 ounce skat bottle does match in size and markings and was produced in the millions in ww2 jungle kits, perhaps testing the chemicals of the artifact and skat would be smart.
Not wanting to re read the 34 pages, can someone (Joe?) please summerise why this analysis was carried out and to what purpose.
Thanks :)
A bottle of Campana Dreskin - The Original Skin Invigorator:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BOX-BOTTLE-1934-CAMPANAS-DRESKIN-SKIN-INVIGORATOR-GOOD-H-KEEPING-/310572927304
with advertising materials showing how marketed.
That sounds sort of familiar.
That sounds sort of familiar.
How could we have missed Niku's thriving dairy industry as the source of the Seven Site bottles?
Ric, you mean to tell me there aren't ANY dairy cattle on a small desert island in the middle of the Pacific?! What are the odds?! I suppose next you'll tell me it's difficult to find a good, steady source of fresh water or that there are probably fifty different easy ways to die there!That sounds sort of familiar.
How could we have missed Niku's thriving dairy industry as the source of the Seven Site bottles?
Absolutely! I think it was originally designed to be used on dairy cow's udders. They tend to get fairly sore when milking machines are used, especially in the winter.
"John L. Norris bought the formula for Bag Balm®—a salve created to soften cow udders—that worked extremely well."
Thanks. One point to keep in mind is we've never had an Italian Balm bottle with intact product inside to test. All we have had to work with are faint remnants the lab can scrape off the sides of the interior of one of the bottles. Most sellers wash them thoroughly before offering them for sale. If a bottle of Italian Balm ever appeared with ample contents inside, I think we'd have more than just the close match we obtained.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Scientists speak in very literal, as opposed to colloquial, terms and it's important to interpret them as such. Her description of "partially filled" is accurate in the literal sense, since any amount of material partially fills it. My statement is also accurate. The material inside the authentic bottle was scant, but enough to provide a picture of what had been inside it. My point is I would prefer to have a more fully intact product inside because I believe this would have yielded an even better match than the close match obtained. I spotted such a bottle on a website, contacted the owner, but he did not wish to part with the bottle or a sample of its contents. Should such a bottle ever appear for sale, I would purchase and test it as well.Thanks. One point to keep in mind is we've never had an Italian Balm bottle with intact product inside to test. All we have had to work with are faint remnants the lab can scrape off the sides of the interior of one of the bottles. Most sellers wash them thoroughly before offering them for sale. If a bottle of Italian Balm ever appeared with ample contents inside, I think we'd have more than just the close match we obtained.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Well please explain report #1180 which states Dr.Mass has a "partially filled bottle of Campana", for comparison to the artifact. see description below.
"The fragment contains two dark brown residues and one white residue in its base, as well
as a reddish-brown residue near the top. The FTIR spectra from these residues were
compared to those from a non-archaeological and partially filled bottle of Campana
Italian Balm conducted by the Evans Analytical Group (David Saperstein, PhD
Scientist, FTIR, GCMS and Raman Services)"
Clearly a partially filled known bottle of Campana Balm is a lot different that the one you just described with faint crusty scrapings inside.
I am sure I am not alone.
So where is the picture of the empty Campana bottle with label that was tested against the artifact?I'm having difficulty posting photos in response to the above question. Is the server having issues? I notice mobile internet is very spotty as well.
I'm having difficulty posting photos in response to the above question. Is the server having issues? I notice mobile internet is very spotty as well.
I have come to appreciate that those who too much play up a story are as detrimental to its reasoned consideration and analysis as those who seek by any means to shoot it down.
Anyone on a south pacific island of European origin might rightly be concerned of sunburn, the same as today if visiting the
beach and everyone is lathering on sun screen.
So on an island which was lived on by European men, used by European men,(such as the now known timber cutters), lived on by a coast guard station, the idea an empty jar of skin protectant, or skin healer, used by a man is not a far fetched hypothesis.
So on an island which was lived on by European men, used by European men,(such as the now known timber cutters), lived on by a coast guard station, the idea an empty jar of skin protectant, or skin healer, used by a man is not a far fetched hypothesis.
Your desperate defense doesn't hold p. The only European men who lived on the island, as far as I know, were Gallagher, the Coasties, and for a a couple months, Laxton. We have an inventory of Gallagher's personal effects. No skin protectorates there. We have numerous photos of bare-chested Coasties. No concern about sunburn there. That leaves Laxton who is known to have visited the site once. What's this about about European timber cutters? I must have missed that.
So on an island which was lived on by European men, used by European men,(such as the now known timber cutters), lived on by a coast guard station, the idea an empty jar of skin protectant, or skin healer, used by a man is not a far fetched hypothesis.
Your desperate defense doesn't hold p. The only European men who lived on the island, as far as I know, were Gallagher, the Coasties, and for a a couple months, Laxton. We have an inventory of Gallagher's personal effects. No skin protectorates there. We have numerous photos of bare-chested Coasties. No concern about sunburn there. That leaves Laxton who is known to have visited the site once. What's this about about European timber cutters? I must have missed that.
There is not an ounce of desperation in pointing out sunburn relief cream on a tropical island is far from extraordinary.
Especially one with a coast guard station on it. A Coast guard station equals a LOT OF PEOPLE WITH SUNBURN POTENTIAL.
I find it amusing for the head of Tighar to quickly skim the US military living there as "the coasties" and give it some short Shrift almost like that is an irrelevant time and matter. Yet I have desperation?
For you as well as I know Ric, this jar could have rode in aboard a US transport as well as the Electra. It also has several other
potential sources which are in this thread and I will not rehash.
As far as Timber cutters, well you must have amnesia or are a bit tired, because you have talked at length in multiple threads on this forum about Timber cutters being on the island before Earhart, when discussing a potential source for the found sextant box, shoes.
They could have also dropped an empty sunburn jar obviously. As could any other visitor, whether Brits raising markers of possession, nailing notices on the trees, or fisherman out for an adventure(both also documented on these pages in the past).
The island has been used,and during the 1920-40's offers numerous possibilities for the simple loss of a sunburn jar.
That it "may" be part of the puzzle I concede. I also am rational enough to weigh the evidence and concede these jars perhaps have no connection to Earhart at all, and that is as plain as the sun which caused the infliction to begin with.
So on an island which was lived on by European men, used by European men,(such as the now known timber cutters), lived on by a coast guard station, the idea an empty jar of skin protectant, or skin healer, used by a man is not a far fetched hypothesis.
Your desperate defense doesn't hold p. The only European men who lived on the island, as far as I know, were Gallagher, the Coasties, and for a a couple months, Laxton. We have an inventory of Gallagher's personal effects. No skin protectorates there. We have numerous photos of bare-chested Coasties. No concern about sunburn there. That leaves Laxton who is known to have visited the site once. What's this about about European timber cutters? I must have missed that.
The straw man has made an appearance in the argument.
As far as Timber cutters, well you must have amnesia or are a bit tired, because you have talked at length in multiple threads on this forum about Timber cutters being on the island before Earhart, when discussing a potential source for the found sextant box, shoes.
There were PEOPLE and THINGS in the airplane.
You might be able to assist in reaching the practical determination of whether the Earhart aircraft landed at Nikumaroro if you were to spend some of your time examining what has already been found,
As far as Timber cutters, well you must have amnesia or are a bit tired, because you have talked at length in multiple threads on this forum about Timber cutters being on the island before Earhart, when discussing a potential source for the found sextant box, shoes.
If you'll review those threads I think you'll find you are mistaken. In 1939 and '40 the first settlers on Nikumaroro did a lot of timber cutting for the construction of the Government Station. We suspect that it was one of these timber cutting parties that discovered the skull of the castaway. The work parties were Gilbertese laborers. There were no Europeans on the island at that time.
According to Harry Maude's history of Gardner Island prepared as part of his proposal for the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, the "well-known island identity" was the Samoa Shipping and Trading Company, Ltd. who were issued an Occupation License for a term of 87 years on January 1st, 1914. The manager of the company, Captain Allen, "made several visits to Gardner for the purpose of cutting and loading timber for ship repairing but no other use was made of the island."
The straw man has made an appearance in the argument.
The forum does seem to have a Scarecrow Brigade who are more interested in naysaying than in doing any genuine research to support their imaginings about what someone might have done. What was it the Scarecrow wished he had?
Has the area directly in front of the arrow shaped anomoloy been searched and dug over, Could be a marker of some sorts
There was no introduction of a straw man in my reply as you are well aware. Your assertion that there was is because I simply pointed out that photos of bare-chested Coast Guard personnel is not evidence that all Coast Guard personnel were unconcerned about sunburn only that some were.
It is a small point but one that should be noted as this freckle cream jar has a great deal of TIGHAR's argument that Earhart landed on Nikumaroro riding on its tiny and shattered shoulders.
Pointing out that there could have been sun-sensitive Coast Guardsman who didn't get his picture taken argues against a position we haven't taken. That's a straw man.
You will excuse the placing of this question here but I have quite forgotten where I asked it. I recall that in answer to some discussion of the tide data and water levels on the reef you said that Mr Brandenberg was preparing a new paper which answered the questions raised, I was wondering how that was progressing.
But credit where credit is due, Mr Cerniglia has done sterling work in his study of all things freckle cream - perhaps he should publish these in an appropriate publication. I for one now know more about this product than I ever thought possible or necessary. :)
VELVETINA VANISHING CREAM!!?? That explains everything! OK, next project... :D
I think vanishing creams did contain mercury, which is interesting; but both the Velvetinas, the older posting mentioned by Richie and the one found by Andrew, are in opaque (milk) glass and do not have the "HA" Hazel-Atlas trademark on the bottom. I suppose HA might still have made them, as a custom order in customer-specified color and with the product name on the bottom.
I think vanishing creams did contain mercury, which is interesting; but both the Velvetinas, the older posting mentioned by Richie and the one found by Andrew, are in opaque (milk) glass and do not have the "HA" Hazel-Atlas trademark on the bottom. I suppose HA might still have made them, as a custom order in customer-specified color and with the product name on the bottom.
VELVETINA VANISHING CREAM!!?? That explains everything! OK, next project... :D
Yup That vanishing cream has allot to answer for haha, However it's the first jar i have found that is similar to dr berrys jar out of the well over 100.000 odd i have looked at in last 12 month's ::) It is mentioned page 4 i think on this topic but no picture was attached :)
Thanks Richie
The lab tests and our analysis of them are still in process. We are about halfway through the tests we want to run and then there will be the process of interpreting what it all means. It's a little bit like writing a graduate level thesis.
The lab tests and our analysis of them are still in process. We are about halfway through the tests we want to run and then there will be the process of interpreting what it all means. It's a little bit like writing a graduate level thesis.
Then isn't a bit premature to conclude that the jar held a mercury-rich substance?
However, like so many I am baffled with the reality that this artifact jar is clear and not that of milk glass. Like you, I have been searching for weeks on end, and have come up with nothing!!!
...wouldn't you all agree that if Amelia did carry a jar of Freckle cream...then a milk glass jar should be there.
On one occasion, however, in the heat of battle, my enthusiasm did cause me to say more than I knew, before all possible tests had been run. Here is that remark:
"We have found mercury in quantity sufficient to have been considered part of the original contents on the inside of the jar."
A remark such as that one might better have been reserved until all the work was completed, and even then it would need to be qualified against other tests. The quantity found, after all, is only one variable from only one experiment. The fault for that remark is mine, not TIGHAR's. I'm not perfect and I make mistakes, but when I do, I admit them and move on. Is this sufficient expiation, Mr. Kada?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
I was idling wondering Mr Cerniglia if basics exclusion tests have been done to establish if there is a natural contamination of mercuric compounds in the soil and other naturally occurring items near where the jar fragments were found.
I was idling wondering Mr Cerniglia if basics exclusion tests have been done to establish if there is a natural contamination of mercuric compounds in the soil and other naturally occurring items near where the jar fragments were found.
You are in good company in your suggestion. The lead scientist at the lab has also suggested this as a possible experiment. The problem is that there isn't much of what one would typically call "soil" at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site). If you read the link in that last sentence, it says under "Site Structure," that "The ridge on which the Seven Site lies is composed of coral rubble thrown up by wave action and stabilized by vegetation. There is little soil accumulation, though screening does produce a small amount of humic material."
Here's what it looks like (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9BQ6S67GRTY/SqRhAAohHPI/AAAAAAAAADU/FVfX1SSrgeY/s1600-h/ExStratMkdup.jpg).
It's not exactly the type of material in which one would imagine deposits of mercury from wind or rain adhering. The samples Dr. King has told me about are of three types: "a) coral rubble and b) some fine-grained material, probably largely ash, from the SL (slope) feature, and (c) a 'soil' area near the SE corner of the 'site' -- that is, of the area we've investigated."
We may want to test the coral for mercury eventually, but I decided if we do it, it should be in a later round of testing. One important control we want to do in this first round is to test another glass shard that is not from that jar to see what types of mercury readings we obtain.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Hi All
Here is another product using similar jar
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-MARINELLO-Cosmetic-Milk-Glass-Face-Cream-Jar-Cosmetic-Vanity-/330876513905?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D27%26meid%3D5802545352964045001%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D1011%26rk%3D3%26sd%3D190679115485%26
(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/5/6/7/6/2/webimg/648488628_tp.jpg)
Also i have just been reading on this site http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/hazel-atlas-glass-company/ paragraph 6 caught my attention Platonite has this area been researched
my apologies if this has been talked about before
Thanks Richie
Thank you Mr Cerniglia for your reply. No doubt you have considered that soil as we have referred to it covers a multitude of things. Fine grained coral mixed with the decayed remnants of bird, fish bones and shells etc. is the soil of the island and that which encourages the growth of the flora of the island. Compounds such as mercuric ones etc. are known to become concentrated in animals at the upper levels of the food chain due to their natural selection of prey that provides the best dietary intake against the effort to harvest these. So if there is naturally occurring mercuric content in the various animals that form the links in that food chain then the higher species in the chain will be ingesting greater concentrations of a compound like a mercuric one. It follows therefore that as these species suffer mortality in some form either as prey or simply dying then when their bones and flesh break down the trace elements and molecular compounds will be deposited in areas around where the decay occurs. Over times there will be a gradual increase in any molecular compounds like mercury compounds in what we call the soil of the island. Mercuric compounds are reasonably stable and could probably associated with minor flooding events or rainfall be transported to and deposited on otherwise mercuric free objects such as glass etc. So while I think that your work on the classification and study of the availability of the various unguent containers that might fit the profile of the glass fragments is first class, I still wonder about the aforementioned natural contamination of these fragments in the environment of Nikumaroro especially as the species on land would appear to represent the top predators in the food chain that leads from the sea to the land. Therefore I would suggest that soil sampling from various localities needs to be addressed - unless it has been done and this form of contamination has been previously ruled out.The 2 main arguments that came up, as I recall, were that 1) the level of mercury on such a small surface area of glass would indicate a proportionally large soil contamination, if soil contamination were the culprit. The amount was simply too large to be accounted for by environmental background levels, even had it been found in an urban area. The amount wasn't extremely high in terms of sheer volume, but it was high when compared to the small surface area tested, only a few square cm. Had these levels been detected on, say, an equivalent area of a laboratory countertop, Greg has demonstrated it is just large enough that a hazmat team would need to be called in for cleanup. 2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
The 2 main arguments that came up, as I recall, were that 1) the level of mercury on such a small surface area of glass would indicate a proportionally large soil contamination, if soil contamination were the culprit. The amount was simply too large to be accounted for by environmental background levels, even had it been found in an urban area. The amount wasn't extremely high in terms of sheer volume, but it was high when compared to the small surface area tested, only a few square cm. Had these levels been detected on, say, an equivalent area of a laboratory countertop, Greg has demonstrated it is just large enough that a hazmat team would need to be called in for cleanup. 2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
The amount wasn't extremely high in terms of sheer volume, but it was high when compared to the small surface area tested, only a few square cm. Had these levels been detected on, say, an equivalent area of a laboratory countertop, Greg has demonstrated it is just large enough that a hazmat team would need to be called in for cleanup. 2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
Now, these are good arguments, and yours are too, Dan. They account for all the situations I can envision. But they can't account for situations I may not have envisioned. Feynman would probably have been in favor of a soil test. I'm not against it. It's just that we can more quickly disverify our hypothesis of a mercury-bearing cream having been in the jar if we can find evidence other glass on the site is similarly contaminated. It's just a matter of taking one step at a time. Sound reasonable?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
The 2 main arguments that came up, as I recall, were that 1) the level of mercury on such a small surface area of glass would indicate a proportionally large soil contamination, if soil contamination were the culprit. The amount was simply too large to be accounted for by environmental background levels, even had it been found in an urban area. The amount wasn't extremely high in terms of sheer volume, but it was high when compared to the small surface area tested, only a few square cm. Had these levels been detected on, say, an equivalent area of a laboratory countertop, Greg has demonstrated it is just large enough that a hazmat team would need to be called in for cleanup. 2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
Joe, if you don't mind me asking, how much mercury was found by the lab, and how big an area of the jar was tested? The only information I have seen in this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg17755.html#msg17755) in which you are quoted by Randy Conrad as saying in an email that "Evans Analytical Group in Syracuse, New York has reported today that 3.4 micrograms per liter of mercury was detected from the ointment pot".
Perhaps this is not actually what you said, or what you meant? It's hard for me to understand from the quote, as written, how the measurement was performed or what the measurement results were, so it is hard to see how it was concluded that the amount of mercury present in the jar was unusually high. Can you state the lab results in units of mass per unit area (e.g., micrograms per square cm) ? That might help clear things up, at least for me.
Thanks!
The amount wasn't extremely high in terms of sheer volume, but it was high when compared to the small surface area tested, only a few square cm. Had these levels been detected on, say, an equivalent area of a laboratory countertop, Greg has demonstrated it is just large enough that a hazmat team would need to be called in for cleanup. 2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
Now, these are good arguments, and yours are too, Dan. They account for all the situations I can envision. But they can't account for situations I may not have envisioned. Feynman would probably have been in favor of a soil test. I'm not against it. It's just that we can more quickly disverify our hypothesis of a mercury-bearing cream having been in the jar if we can find evidence other glass on the site is similarly contaminated. It's just a matter of taking one step at a time. Sound reasonable?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Thank you Mr Cerniglia for your reply, but that isn't the question. My question was were soil samples taken from the area of the fragment finds and also from scientifically defined random sites on the island to determine exactly what is the average background mercury compound contamination, and for that matter other naturally occurring metallic contaminants, so that the amount found on the glass fragment can be placed within its probability range in the island environment. Only then, I suggest, can TIGHAR begin to define if the glass fragments are those of a vessel which at some time held a skin lotion of some mercury containing kind or contrarily held some other non-mercury based unguent. Please accept that I am not criticising your thorough work on establishing a comparative morphological and historical typology of unguent jars of this kind.
Doing a bit web searching, I do find a study of seabirds with mercury concentration at Midway Island
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969700004964 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969700004964)
That indicates contamination levels in the range of 2,000 PPB for frigate birds, and up to 7,000 PPB for red-tailed tropic birds, and near 20,000 PPB for black footed albatross and tops out at 31,900 PPB for the bonin petrel. I don't think we have either the albatross or the petrel at Nikumaroro, so we can cross those two off the list. There are studies showing humans who eat dolphin on a regular basis testing out as high as 19 PPM, but I don't think that these levels are high enough to infuse the jar glass with the level of mercury that was found in the lab.
Can you cite any reference for the concentration of mercury by top predators on uninhabited coral atolls that would result in contamination high enough to infuse glass with 3.4 micrograms of mercury per liter? Outside of a toxic waste dump, I doubt that the food chain mechanism could achieve such levels.
Joe, can you translate the lab findings of 3.4 micrograms per liter into PPM? I'm a bit hazy on how to relate the two.
Dan
I think your suggestion that ONLY after eliminating all variables regarding the ambient level of mercury contamination, can TIGHAR claim that the jar glass has an elevated level of mercury due to it's former contents to be somewhat unreasonable.
Yes it is true that, in theory, the 7 site might in fact be a toxic waste site contaminated by hazmat team levels of mercury sufficient to infuse the glass of the jar with a similar level of toxicity, but I think the odds are pretty small given what we know about coral atolls, the history of Nikumaroro, and what we know about the products sold in that particular jar. Coral atolls are not generally known for being repositories of heavy metals without significant external contamination, and the Phoenix islands are about as far away from sources of contamination as one can get.
You cite the concentration of mercury in the food chain as a possible source of contamination. What exact species of "top predators in the food chain that leads from the sea to the land" are you suggesting contributed to such potential contamination? Are we talking frigate birds, hermit crabs, coco crabs, tuna, dolphins, sharks, humans? The top predators in that gang generally don't consistently land themselves at the 7 site in sufficient quantity to provide hazmat team level of contamination. Keep in mind that we've only found evidence of a countable number of individuals of all species, so it isn't like the place is completely overrun with the remains of mercury laden top predators, there simply isn't that much remaining of any species. ...
Andrew
. . . the type of jar we found is known to have been used for a product that contained significant levels of mercury.
Nikumaroro is basically a bird sanctuary which provides a nesting place for birds whose primary diet is sea food. In the marine environment the food chain, as you also no doubt aware, has many links in its species predation. The marine environment is also such that from the smallest creature consumed through each step there is a steady concentration of heavy metal contaminants until fish are consumed by sea birds which come back to islands like Nikumaroro and feed their young, defecate, die in all manner of ways etc.. Those processes then release some of the contaminants like mercury compounds back into the soil.
Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that the mercury found on the jar is from bird dung???? We're talking about the broken jar whose pieces were found buried in coral rubble (not guano)??? What gave you the idea that Nikumaroro is basically a bird sanctuary? Yes, there are plenty of birds there but it's no more a bird sanctuary than it is a crab or shark sanctuary. There isn't now and there apparently never was a significant guano deposit anywhere on the island - unlike, for example, McKean Island (now THERE'S a bird sanctuary). I'd wager that the Seven Site has no more bird droppings per square meter than your back yard.
It is, of course, possible that on some day long ago when the jar was sitting on the ground, upright, undamaged, with the lid off, some bird with mercury saturated poop and a Norden bombsight managed to score a direct hit. If that's your hypothesis we could probably help you devise an experiment to test it.
Well you might care to correct the Wikipedia entry regarding the bird sanctuary. Apparently that says that ...
"The island is part of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, and as such, has been named an Important Bird Area.".
However that aside. It seems to me that getting a straight answer about the background levels of heavy metal contamination in what passes for soil on the island is an impossibly difficult question for people to answer.
Now I do respectfully submit that Dr Berry's freckle cream relied on mercury to do its advertised job so I would think that finding a mercuric compound on the glass residue of a jar that is suggested by TIGHAR to have arrived with Earhart on the island (bearing in mind her apparent problem with freckles) was a big boost to TIGHAR's quest.
And if I am not mistaken from the accounts I have read it still is, but just as one swallow a spring does not make, so too a trace of a mercuric compound does not a freckle cream make unless that trace can be ruled out as coming from heavy metal compounds arriving on the island through the digestive processes of sea birds. And the latter I respectfully suggest can only be ascertained if appropriate random sampling is done. In a reply to my earlier question about this matter Mr Cerniglia mentioned the question asked by an analyst he approached ... "You are in good company in your suggestion. The lead scientist at the lab has also suggested this as a possible experiment." http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg23841.html#msg23841
Therefore the question seems to be a fairly common sense one asked by people who are thinking about the mercury traces on the glass fragment. Personally I see no problem with analysing soil samples to ascertain this data if those samples still exist other than the cost. If they don't then whenever TIGHAR revisits the island perhaps the sampling could be done. It is a sort of belt and braces approach to shore up TIGHAR's argument.
2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
To continue in the quibbling spirit of this thread - "an Important Bird Area" is not the same thing as "basically a bird sanctuary." The Wikipedia entry is a general statement. Niku is an Important Bird Area because it's part of the PIPA. My comment is a specific statement - based upon direct observation over periods of several weeks in 1996, 2001, 2007, and 2010 - about bird activity at the site where the buried jar fragments were found. In my opinion, the notion that the mercury detected on the jar might be attributable to a general saturation of the site with bird droppings is on a par with speculation about a transvestite Coastie being responsible for compact mirror and make-up. We welcome serious suggestions of alternative hypotheses but this is just harassment.
I thought reply #609 in this thread put to bed the idea that environmental contamination was an explanation for the mercury on the jar.Quote2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
I thought reply #609 in this thread put to bed the idea that environmental contamination was an explanation for the mercury on the jar.Quote2) the type of mercury suspected, ammoniated mercury, will adhere to glass, whereas elemental mercury, the type found environmentally, will not.
Is the type of mercury on the jar known or is it just suspected? We'll learn the details of the analysis of the Hazel-Atlas Jar from Joe, but at the moment we out here in Forum-Land don't know.
Mercury exists in the environment in several chemical forms. I suspect the mercury in Niku's soil would not be in elemental form, and it think it is very unlikely that it would be in elemental form in in bird tissue.
A question for Messrs. Kada, Kelly and Harris:
What would it take to convince you that the jar contained Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream?
Mr. Kelly. You state it would be inappropriate for anyone to assume a relationship between the alleged freckle cream container and Amelia Earhart. I don't believe anyone on this forum, least of all Mr. Gillespie would disagree with that admonition. The perils of making such an assumption notwithstanding, Mr. Gillespie asked you directly what it would take to convince you of such an association. I too would like to know...
... Dan Kelly, you initially raised a valid point in that levels of mercury detected in the glass of the jar could reflect environmental effects and were given a solid answer by Joe and Ric that other items recovered from the site would be tested (a pretty good control) and that future expeditions would take proper soil samples. This did not seem to satisfy you. ....
To be blunt I think it is a distraction at present because it raises more questions than answers.Then you have paid this work the highest compliment, and I thank you, for, to quote a favorite textbook of mine, "diligent scientific inquiry always raises more questions than it answers." That is a quotation worth re-reading. But surely you can't be serious about the distraction part. How can you dismiss the work on the jar as a distraction at the same time that you urge costly lab work to answer, and perhaps pose, additional questions regarding its provenance? It's an absolute conundrum, a state of favoring the research and opposing it at one and the same moment. And if it be a distraction, unworthy of further comment, why then do you, and I and others seem to continue to want to talk about it? ;)
To be blunt I think it is a distraction at present because it raises more questions than answers.Then you have paid this work the highest compliment, and I thank you, for, to quote a favorite textbook of mine, "diligent scientific inquiry always raises more questions than it answers." That is a quotation worth re-reading. But surely you can't be serious about the distraction part. How can you dismiss the work on the jar as a distraction at the same time that you urge costly lab work to answer, and perhaps pose, additional questions regarding its provenance? It's an absolute conundrum, a state of favoring the research and opposing it at one and the same moment. And if it be a distraction, unworthy of further comment, why then do you, and I and others seem to continue to want to talk about it? ;)
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
To be blunt I think it is a distraction at present because it raises more questions than answers.Then you have paid this work the highest compliment, and I thank you, for, to quote a favorite textbook of mine, "diligent scientific inquiry always raises more questions than it answers." That is a quotation worth re-reading. But surely you can't be serious about the distraction part. How can you dismiss the work on the jar as a distraction at the same time that you urge costly lab work to answer, and perhaps pose, additional questions regarding its provenance? It's an absolute conundrum, a state of favoring the research and opposing it at one and the same moment. And if it be a distraction, unworthy of further comment, why then do you, and I and others seem to continue to want to talk about it? ;)
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
I do not see the freckle cream jar as a diagnostic artefact because it comes from a locale which, if I understand the various archaeological assessments provided by TIGHAR and some interesting commentary from another archaeologist who posted here some time back correctly, is seriously corrupted in terms of the overlapping and intertwined activity at the site. Given that TIGHAR's own consultant archaeologist has misgivings who am I, a simple interested bystander, to argue with that.
If one piece of evidence has zero connection to Earhart, then 5 other equally non relevant artifacts do not combine and somehow become relevant and assume a greater weight. Each piece and artifact has to stand on it's own merits. The Jar has to have a proven connection to Earhart to be taken seriously. So to each his own standard, but for me, this doesn't meet the minimum of any relevance at all. All we have is a possible skin care product in a jar which was most likely made between 1900-1930 and Earhart was also flying over the pacific in 1937. That's it. Nothing more.
That is weaker than iced tea.
In my opinion we tend to use "science" as a rather fuzzy and elastic concept on these pages. I suspect that your textbook was referring more to basic scientific research or inquiry, as in: "What the heck is gravity?" or "Is 'string theory' valid or a bunch of nonsense?".Not at all. The book (http://books.google.com/books?id=CBx9KDH1qaYC&pg=PA6&dq=science+always+raises+more+questions+than+answers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7ZwtUeS6Joy40gG4w4CAAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=science%20always%20raises%20more%20questions%20than%20answers&f=false)in question was discussing, in context of the quotation, why it was that atmospheric constituents of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, appear to be escaping into space when measured conditions seemed to argue against that occurrence. This is not epistemology or abstract questioning; it's scientific inquiry aimed at a very specific problem.
The order of the day is applied science: investigation into concrete things according to scientific principles, aka forensic investigation.Couldn't agree more.
Imagine the chief of an FBI laboratory coming in and asking, "OK, guys, what can you tell me about the origin of the murder bullet and the gun that fired it? It's our most critical evidence" And the reply coming back, "Chief, our inquiry has been very diligent and we're proud to say that we've managed to come up with 22 new questions to ask you about it." I don't think so. Even civil servants would get fired for that.Civil servants don't seem to have the best track record on Earhart's disappearance. Maybe this is why. Seems to me a woman named Betty had some information and some questions for some civil service agents a while back. As I recall their response was about what you describe.
Perhaps I have gone beyond the scope of the original question but personally I can see no firm evidence to safely assume anything about the jar or its relations with Earhart or anyone else.
We need to get out of the trees and start looking at the whole forest, I think. :-*
Rather than offer evidence of who such a castaway might be, if not the 1930s female who is known to have disappeared in the region, ...
Perhaps I have gone beyond the scope of the original question but personally I can see no firm evidence to safely assume anything about the jar or its relations with Earhart or anyone else.
You didn't even answer the original question but you have confirmed my suspicion that you are more interested in flinging down caltrops (nice metaphor) than in any rational assessment of the evidence. We'll continue to assess the likelihood of what the jar contained and who brought it to the island based on the research and testing we're able to do.
. . . a clear glass jar of Dr Berry's Freckle Cream (one that had appears to have been out of production for over 15 years) . . .
In a nutshell show me data that demonstrates conclusively that the jar did indeed contain a mercury compound freckle cream by also ruling out contamination from environmental factors and I will accept that it is a freckle cream jar.
Then show me evidence that Earhart had a clear glass jar of Dr Berry's Freckle Cream (one that had appears to have been out of production for over 15 years) on her last flight and I will accept that you have found her. Now there isn't a strawman there at all that I can see, but no doubt someone will find him hidden.