Print

[Rafael Krasnodebski]

My objection was to the the term 'junk' just because an item was deemed too old, but since we seem to have flogged that one to death and agreed to disagree, I'm happy to leave it there. The reason why I think it's important is because I believe this investigation will not end with the establishment of a postitive connection between Niku and AE. Let's suppose for a moment that the wing or whatever it is that was found on the last trip proves, after salvage, to be part of the Electra. Once the media noise dies down and all the sceptics apologise to Ric, the work will really start. Ric's hypothesis states that AE and FN landed their plane on Niku,  it was subesquently washed under the ocean and then one or both of them somehow ended up on the seven site. The discovery of the plane on a ridge below Niku will raise more questions than answers. The world will want to know what happened next and tracing our interpid flyers' steps from the 'Nessie' site to the seven site will doubtless take years of painstaking reasearch during which the presence of all sorts of 'junk' may take on a different meaning altogether. I may be jumping the (smoking) gun, but nothing is 'junk' unless it post-dates the Electra's disappearance.
Best regards to you all
That 'ridiculous other poster' ... Otherwise known as

[Don Dollinger]

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.

For once I agree.  Even if they found the Electra parked on the beach next to the 7 site, short of DNA on the bottle, it can not be positively linked to Earhart.  This is how it is to be viewed. 
- The questions are asked, could they have landed at Niku, lived a period of time as castaways, camped at the 7 site and died there?
- Those question can not be answered with absolute certainty even if the Electra is found, the bottle is just another piece of "circumstancial" evidence that goes with the bones, the shoe pieces, aircraft aluminum, the plexiglass, the zipper, etc., that says a categorical MAYBE someone of Europian descent was a castaway and died there. 
- It was never stated nor implied that any of these were smoking guns, as a single item nor with all the items that they have combined.
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.   

[dave burrell]

J Neville, no I don't know the date, I was using 1905 as an example as you said.
To make my point that dating the jar is vital.
Some here said any date prior to 1937 doesn't disprove it was AE's.
My point was if it's too early the probabilities greatly support the contention
it is just trash. Not impossible, but if the probabilites are too low, it does become
reaching.
I do agree that is Tighars position as well. I do not for a second think that if this dates
to 1905 Tighar will put any weight behind it. Some posters still will.
And some will say "well Amelia could have used it"
No matter how improbable that is.
A scientist will not relate it to Ms.Earnhart if it's too dated too early.

I lived in Key west for a few years. Islands are trash collectors. It was very common to find 1950's beer bottles inland, even in 1985. It's just the nature of being an island.
Put a chlorine float in your pool, come back in a few days, and most of the floating debris will be around the float. Wind and Current(from pump) eventually has debris hitting the "island" where it remains. Until the next storm.

I would love to date this 1930 to 1937. I have put some research into it and have contacted the administrator of the West Virginia Glass Museum to help. He had never heard of this jar but agreed to check his catalogs of Hazel Atlas glass in his possession. Keep your fingers crossed.
A date of 1935 would really narrow it down and have some serious weight behind it.
Everyone keep looking! 

[Malcolm McKay]

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.

Well actually I prefer to look at these stray artifacts from a fence sitting position. Uncomfortable I know because it can attract complaint from both sides but necessary from a purely scientific view because unless direct attribution or a clear attribution to some other circumstance can be demonstrated all we can say is that we don't know. Remember I said stray artifacts because given the lack of any reliable relative dating to the hypothesised time when Earhart was supposedly on the island they all could date from any period after their initial manufacture right up until they were found by TIGHAR. The only artifacts that are less broad in the date of their appearance are the items reported by Gallagher and of course items that we know to come from the various settlements and the visits to the island. That I admit is a rather bleak view but then that is all the evidence at present allows.

[Mark Pearce]

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… ”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Qn9iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dXcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4329,106218&dq=hazel+atlas+ointment&hl=en

[dave burrell]

Mark, nice work.
It has to be a negative variable of course for this hypothesis.
You are right, now it cannot be said an American woman probably had this.
It also clearly suggests OPAL(WHITE) was the predominant pot by 1915
which is supported by the 1926 catalog I found,and the lack of additional matching clear pots found. Not that I am suggesting that is the full inventory Hazel atlas made in the 20's and 30's. We may find a clear ointment pot in a catalog. I hope so since I do believe she landed there. Based on the sum of ALL the evidence, with little emphasis on this jar.
Of course come Sunday, if we see an Electra, all this is a moot point! 

[Rafael Krasnodebski]

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… ”

They were taking a bit of a risk weren't they? Was Mr A.B. Paxton a popular man?  This was over a year after the start of WW1 and well into the unrestricted German U-boat campaign against merchant shipping in the Atlantic (which had commenced in February 1915). If Hazel-Atlas had such huge orders from a war-time England where space on Atlantic crossing ships was mostly reserved for items 'vital to the war effort', does this not suggest Hazel-Atlas products were being ordered for military or medical issue? Can we find out who the British customer was and what they were ordering? All gripping stuff eh? But back on Niku, it simply adds a little weight to the thing having found its way there on the Norwich City. It doesn't prove or disprove anything else.

As for the esteemed Mr Burell's statement that:

It also clearly suggests OPAL(WHITE) was the predominant pot by 1915

I read the article several times and still cannot see that. It says that "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…" it doesn't say these are the predominant pot by 1915. It doesn't even say these are being shipped to England. It just says they need to increase capacity for one type of popular product. It does however say that "Practically every kind of product made by the company, except mason jars, is being shipped abroad", which suggests a variety of products ...

 ... or am I being ridiculous again? 

[Rafael Krasnodebski]

 ... who after donning their tutu's, picked up all the glass jars they could find and shot the living daylights out them with their M1s. 

[Ricker H Jones]

 Joe Cerniglia has amassed a large number of advertisements for Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream, showing the availability of this jar as late as the Spring of 1933. (A copy of the Fall 1930 Sears Roebuck catalog page is attached.) Thus, its availability went well into the 1930's.  If one wanted to pursue this further, simply registering for a membership with Ancestry.com will provide access these catalogs. The cost is somewhere around $20.
Rick J.

[C.W. Herndon]

Rick, very interesting ads. I notice that Dr.Berry's is the only one on that page that is pictured in an "ointment jar".

[Alan Harris]

  If one wanted to pursue this further . . .

With this latest input we've already got the change in Berry's jar shape pinned down pretty well, it's between 1933 and 1936.  It's just unfortunate that Sears was not accommodating enough to print their catalogs in color, as the illustrations give no clue about jar color (clear or white).

I am glad to see the post about 1933.  I was considering an "expedition" to my city library's fourth sub-basement to see the actual old Sears catalogs, but was reluctant due to lack of adequate protection from rats & insects and an effective dust mask, haha . . . now I don't need to.

[Randy Conrad]

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!!!!

[Alan Harris]

"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?

[dave burrell]

"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?

yes that would be me who has been saying it for the last week.
 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.
So like I said, the clear jar was LIKELY made in the teens, probably 20 years easily before Earhart could have landed there.
Therefore, the pot heard round the world, and made front page headlines as THE CLUE to solve the mystery, from the LA times to the Washington Post, is probably totally unrelated to Amelia E.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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!!!!

Randy, you might want to study up on how to capture the screen (or window) from your PC.

Doing a screen capture will make your findings more legible.