Print

[John Kada]

I thought reply #609 in this thread put to bed the idea that environmental contamination was an explanation for the mercury on the jar.

2) 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.

[Randy Conrad]

In reference to Mr. Kada's question...here is something to ponder on regarding the make up and analysis of mercury found in the artifact jar. Let's just imagine for a moment that we have two Dr. Berry jars. One is a fairly large sized cream jar...one that most women would keep on their bedroom dresser or on their bathroom sink. The other one...is the size that was found on the island. This particular jar is fairly small, and something that a woman would take with her in her purse or handbag or cosmetic bag. Mainly, this jar is a traveling jar. Now, going back to the first jar...it has a white cream substance in it...Most likely a vanishing or freckle cream material (we don't know for sure). But, it has a fairly large amount of substance in volume. The little jar however, has a component in it that is not of a creamy substance but that in particular of an ointment. Something that is very greasy (oil based) and very concentrated. This particular jar is mainly used for short term purposes and has a smaller amount of substance in volume.
  If we took both jars and opened up their lids and turned them on their sides...Which jar would most likely be emptied first? I would assume the cream jar. Mainly because the cream is very acceptable to moisture. It's like what happens to cold cream after its being applied to the face and later washed off? It doesn't take long for the material to dissolve! In the case of the smaller jar...and let's just say for a moment that it indeed is ointment...how long would it take for the substance to run out of the jar. Remember now...its of an oil based because of its ointment consistency. Now remember...."Oil and Water" don't mix. So you have a substance that lingers on the jar for days, months, and years to come!!!
  Now in reference to the make up part...I believe that mercury would be found more in the smaller jar that that of the bigger jar. If indeed the smaller jar had a cream substance in it...then the mercury makeup would be smaller...because it dissolved faster in water and rain and whatnot! If the jar had an ointment in it then it stands a greater chance of holding on to that makeup consistency. Whereas, in the case of the bigger jar (which by right would have the larger consistency of mercury in it) won't stand the chance of survival with its cream consistency and its intolerance to water and rain. Anyway, I hope you all understand where I'm coming from???

[Dan Kelly]

I thought reply #609 in this thread put to bed the idea that environmental contamination was an explanation for the mercury on the jar.

2) 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.

Mr Kada has made interesting points in both his posts. Certainly when we talk of mercury we are not talking of the shiny fluid metal but a compound which contains mercury. It is a mercury compound that is contained in Dr Berry's freckle unguent. What I was referring to was the contamination of the soil by mercuric compounds that would naturally be found in the excrement, and as I am informed, in the decayed feathers of moulting birds. The fact that mercury is is concentrated in the food chain in direct and increasing proportion to the position of an animal in the ascending food chain is well known. Excess toxic heavy metal intake is also excreted by an organism in hair or feathers - a process long recognised in biology.

Shell fish are known to be quite effective depositories of mercury and other heavy metals given their feeding process as water filterers taking the primary food sources like plankton and other microscopic marine organisms. Likewise coral polyps also are filter feeders so higher concentrations of mercury might be expected in coral gravel and coral based soils.

Add to that the sea bird contribution through faeces and moulting feathers so I would politely suggest that before too much is made of the purported mercury rich jar residue then proper analysis of trace element concentrations in what constitutes the island's soil is a priority. Any reoccurring deposition and evaporation of water in an impervious environment, like glass, would tend to concentrate any water borne trace elements common to the environment in which the process is taking place. It is simple common sense, I respectfully suggest, if one is relying upon the presence of an element to establish the identity of something that the container once contained, to first rule out what the environment in which it is found also contains.

I might add that with respect Mr Cotts' comment that adherence would depend upon what position the fragment lay in in. If it was on its side then perhaps the residue would be washed off but if it had some form of concave surface relative to to the natural level then it would form a crude but effective Petri dish concentrating the deposition from evaporation. Do photos exist of how the fragments were found before they were lifted?   

[Ric Gillespie]

A question for Messrs. Kada, Kelly and Harris:
What would it take to convince you that the jar contained Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream?

[Joe Cerniglia]

Not to interrupt, but just to say I am gathering data behind the scenes from Greg George that I would like to introduce at a later time.  I like the discussion and think it is coming mostly from a genuine wish to participate and help inform our experimental design and I appreciate the contributions.  I haven't exited the discussion. I just need more time to marshal some facts that I think will prove helpful.

Regarding standards of proof, I would only add that we are well advised by Dr. King not to place too much importance on any single artifact.  But there's a corollary to that principle, in my view, and that is that one must build the bridges one can.  Call it the "half a loaf" doctrine. If it is possible to move closer to demonstrating probability for the jar having contained a mercuric substance, that bridge surely ought to be built.  Linking mercuric ointments to AE is much more problematic, but IF that kind of photographic or documentary evidence were to show up (and it could - that video I brought out a few pages ago could have, under different circumstances -- better lighting, focus -- have been it) we need to have these bridges functioning, in place, and as strong as possible. 

That's why I think the experiments and this discussion worthwhile, even without immediate hope that we can satisfy all the linkages we would wish, and no hope that this activity would ever meet the standards of proof to satisfy everyone.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

[Dan Kelly]

A question for Messrs. Kada, Kelly and Harris:
What would it take to convince you that the jar contained Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream?

Thank you for question Mr Gillespie. I can only speak for myself as I am unacquainted with Mr Kada and Mr Harris so I can't presume to speak for them. I see the freckle cream jar issue as having several important components. These are in no particular order of priority.

First are the fragments that of a freckle cream container, or of a container of some other cream or lotion? From reading this thread I see that the answer remains unknown. The identification of its contents as a proprietary freckle cream depends upon the presence of mercuric compounds in residue found on it - the freckle creams of the period being laced with mercury which was their active ingredient. Yet whether this residue is from the container's original content or is a result of concentrations of naturally occurring contaminations from the mercuric content in bird faeces or decayed moulted feathers deposited in the island's soil remains a puzzle because whereas TIGHAR has the glass fragment it has not produced any comparative soil samples that would confirm or eliminate contamination from the environment.

Secondly while the shape of the container has been deduced it is pertinent to ask if containers of that sort only held mercury rich unguents. Much research on the subject has been presented but it seems to me that it appears to start from the question "is this a freckle cream jar?" then with respect I think the answers become biased. The initial questions should be "what did jars of this shape contain" which broadens the research undertaken and might have allowed any possible contamination from the natural environment to be recognised.

Thirdly there has been much discussion of when exactly the jar of this was produced and when production ceased and that seems to suggest that the jar may be too old for what is claimed of it. I won't repeat all the arguments as they are well presented in the threads.

Fourthly and probably least important in real terms is the Earhart connection. From what I have read in the discussions and claims the connection to Earhart hinges upon her comment that she didn't like her freckles. So that has been taken to argue not only did she use an anti-freckle cream, which she probably did, but more notably that this jar was bought by her to the island. However I might say that as per my first three points there is no confirmation that this is a freckle cream jar and that to assume that it is leads to a shaky argument which is - Amelia Earhart had freckles, she used a freckle cream, TIGHAR have found a jar which might have contained freckle cream, therefore this is Earhart's freckle cream jar and therefore it is part of the evidence that shows that she landed on Nikumaroro. I would not be alone in suggesting that this is really just a string of assumptions based on one known piece of data which is Earhart didn't like her freckles.

Fifthly, besides the shaky connection to Earhart there really is quite some doubt about how the jar got to the island. Well reasoned arguments have been presented for several ways this could have happened of which coming with Earhart is only one. There is no evidence to rule out its arrival in stores from the wrecked Norwich City, supply through the normal supply lines to the PISS colony, arrival with the Coast Guard or even with one of the various survey parties that visited the island prior to the PISS colonization. If we combine those honestly expressed doubts with the problem that TIGHAR at present has no evidence to exclude post-deposition contamination then even assuming that it arrived by another source as a freckle cream is a big unsupported step.

It would be wise to face the fact that not only are its original contents unproven but also that the way it reached the island is far from certain. 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. It is an artefact but what the presence of that artefact demonstrates is far from being determined. Your question tends to raise all sorts of issues so I respectfully ask you to  excuse the length of the reply.

[Mark Appel]

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]

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...

Thank you Mr Appel for your question - I think I explained in my post that the question asked by Mr Gillespie is not answerable with a simple yes/no reply given the questions that surround the jar, its contents and the manner of its arrival on the island - if you missed that cautionary admonition then I am sorry.

Bear in mind that what I am saying is purely what I personally would expect. First and most importantly, as I posted earlier, I would like to see soil analysis data showing what the background contamination is given the manner in which Hg becomes concentrated in the bodies of creatures living on a marine diet. This being excreted in faeces and through deposition in feathers. Both of which are probably not in short supply on Nikumaroro and would have been building up ever since the island was above sea level, and this also includes marine filter feeders like the polyps which form the coral. Show me data which effectively rules out water borne contamination and concentration of this through the deposition and evaporation cycle on the glass fragments and that will be a good start.

But even then if the jar is shown absolutely to have contained freckle cream this leads us no closer because then TIGHAR is drawn back into the circular argument I outlined above - "Amelia Earhart had freckles, she used a freckle cream, TIGHAR have found a jar which might have contained freckle cream, therefore this is Earhart's freckle cream jar and therefore it is part of the evidence that shows that she landed on Nikumaroro". As you say this is an unsafe assumption. Therefore once the existence of freckle cream is accepted without doubt you then need something to tie it to Earhart, other than she had freckles because that doesn't tie it to her, all it suggests is another possibility that must be examined. Therefore TIGHAR needs a clear connecting link between that particular jar and Earhart and I am pretty sure they have looked for that quite thoroughly and haven't found anything - if they had then we wouldn't be having this interesting discussion. So as I see it I am not being a naysayer - I am just saying honestly that I have yet to see TIGHAR or anyone else for that matter tie that particular jar to the freckle cream and from there take the most important step which is to tie that particular jar of freckle cream to Earhart and not to any other visitor to the island. Proving through evidence that Earhart landed on the island is the task and that evidence has to be pretty damned conclusive to past muster if it is to solve the mystery.

[Matt Revington]

This has been a fascinating thread (more than 600 posts) on this forum which has attracted many people who seem to think that the identification of this artifact as a freckle cream jar is somehow critical to the Earhart  on Niku hypothesis and therefore worthy of the expenditure of a large amount of time and money by TIGHAR to verify.  This is I believe due to the somewhat undue emphasis given to this jar in news reports at the time of the news conference with the secretary of state last year, it made a nice story AE had freckles ( and a quote existed that indicated she wasn't especially fond of them).  The jar was consistent as far as anyone at that point in time with a freckle cream sold at the time.  Subsequent work has shown that connection to be a bit tenuous, as far as I can tell only milk glass examples of Dr Berry's have been found and there is legitimate doubt as to whether that form of jar was used by Dr Berry after mid 1920s. 
However what is missing here is context, Ric Gillespie was not vacationing on Niku one day when he stumbled on a freckle cream jar and declared this is the proof of AE's presence there.   My back of the envelope chronology would be that TIGHAR came to Niku based on the contents of her last confirmed radio message that some people familiar with aircraft navigation think could have led her to Niku.  On arriving at Niku and not finding remains of the electra hiding behind a shrubbery they looked at the history of the island and found it had housed both a colony and a loran station after AE's time.  The most interesting tidbit that emerged from that history was that in 1940 bones of a cast away had been found on the island, modern re-analysis of the forensic data on those bones suggest they belonged to a woman matching AE's  ethnic background and physical dimensions.  When TIGHAR excavated the 7 site, where they believe the bones were found,  they found among other things cosmetic jars consistent with those used by a 1930s north american woman.  The jar under discussion in this thread is clearly an ointment/cosmetic style jar from from hazel-atlas company produced in america in the period 1905-1935.  There are very few missing pre-war missing north american women in the south pacific, certainly AE is strong candidate but there is nothing conclusive.  The value of the jar is in its context as a part of set of fragments found at this site that together make it likely that a north american woman who could have been AE spent time ( likely between 1933 and 1940 based on the more definite dating of the campana balm bottle) and may have died there.  Whether or not it is a freckle cream is a very minor point, as Joe said it would be half a bridge and convince no one would did not want to be convinced unless a photo of AE holding a Dr Berry's Jar turns up.  None of the artifacts from the 7 site are "smoking guns" but taken together with the overall context are somewhat  convincing. They await the finding of a piece of the plane ( or similarly convincing evidence) at which point the 7 site items would be used to create a likely scenario for the last days of AE. 

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. In fact an almost infinite number of quibbles could be raised with any artifact many of them seemingly plausible and some kind of criteria has to be used to decide what is worth pursuing or not. 
When these forums work well they remind me of the many research lab group meetings that I have participated in, people are allowed to question anything, throw out ideas etc and this serves to stimulate the research process but when someone demands or declares that time and money be spent on an issue it is incumbent on them to produce some kind of prior examples from the literature or other evidence that the work is needed, simply being plausible is not usually enough.  I have a background in chemistry and biology  and have done a literature search for mercury contamination from decaying biological organisms to glass and ceramics and not surprisingly found nothing, there is huge amount of the data about how various organism's absorb mercury from the environment however the analyses cannot be simply reversed.  Outside of the chemistry field perhaps Mr Kelly or someone with a background in archeology can searchfor relevant evidence of heavy metal uptake from animal remains at other sites.  While  most of us expect TIGHAR to follow a high level in their archaelogical work it is not reasonable to expect them to spend their limited resources on an area that at best will give ambiguous results that will not convince anyone and which ultimately is largely peripheral to the investigation.

[Dan Kelly]

... 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. ....

Thank you Mr Revington for your comments - actually the confirmation of future testing did satisfy me as I could see that without that there were a number of quite obvious questions that awaited answers. As for my comments and cautions I was asked a direct question by Mr Gillespie which involved a somewhat complex answer, which I then was asked again by Mr Appel and which I answered. But if this jar is of so little importance in the scheme of things regarding Earhart's presence or not on Nikumaroro I think you will see from its history that it is not I who have thrust it into the limelight. In fact I would respectfully suggest that I am one of the people who are for downplaying it entirely unless some more direct linkage with Earhart can be discerned given the ambiguities associated with it and its suggested contents. To be blunt I think it is a distraction at present because it raises more questions than answers. 

[Randy Conrad]

In recent days I have been following along with many of your comments in relation to the artifact jar. Over the past several weeks, I'm led to believe that there are many out there that may be confused as to its makeup. Is it a cream or is it an ointment? Good question? Anyway, I ran across these videos last night on youtube. It sheds alot of information and the shelf life of such a product. You be the judge!!!!



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2gkDoMNz8RQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YPsJctUFfUo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Joe Cerniglia]

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

[Alan Harris]

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

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?".  I don't really think a lot of that is going on here, or should be.  Einstein would likely not have had much helpful insight about a pre-1918 glass jar.  The order of the day is applied science: investigation into concrete things according to scientific principles, aka forensic investigation.

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.

If I understand Dan Kelly, it is not hard to believe him serious.  As long as even a (hypothetical) fully-verified Berry's Freckle Jar still would have no verifiable connection to Amelia Earhart on her journey, and therefore would not be evidence of either her presence or absence on Niku, research into its identity can certainly be a distraction from other possible activities, if any are available, that would have a more direct bearing on the central question.

As to the posed "conundrum", I can't speak for Mr. Kelly, but I can understand it not as a conflict, but rather as opinions on two different levels.  At the top level, the preference might be to look elsewhere altogether, because the jar research's marginal value is essentially nil.  On a lower level, if others present jar findings or preliminary research or conclusions, it is still valid to have opinions on how those findings were reached and on the methodology of the research performed.  In short: "maybe don't do it at all, but if you're going to do it, here's a suggestion as to how to do it properly."  I would not agree that if he considers the jar a "distraction", then he is instantly disqualified from any commentary on the work and opinions of others.

[Dan Kelly]

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

Perhaps I should have used the term red herring Mr Cerniglia. I feel that the discussion and research has drawn resources from what is the central question which is, did Amelia Earhart land on Nikumaroro? To say that I am "urg(ing) costly lab work to answer, and perhaps pose, additional questions regarding its provenance?" is somehow adding to the distraction is, with respect wrong. I asked a simple question which, to my mind, should have been part of the ensuing research once the fragments were found and that was that soil samples should be taken and tested to verify if the Hg content was a unique feature of the residue on the jar fragment or fell within the natural average levels in the environment it was found. I didn't ask that question just to throw caltrops in your path but because through my reading I was aware of the natural concentration of Hg in fauna relative to their position in the environmental food chain of their habitat. In this case you have not only sea birds which are at the top of the chain and which rely on fish for their diet; fish which themselves are eating other fish and marine creatures etc., all of which are ingesting Hg compounds as part of their diets. Those birds are in turn excreting Hg in their faeces on land and also moulting feathers which are a repository of Hg, and which decay over time thus releasing the Hg contained into the soil of the island. Add to which that soil is primarily decayed coral and coral is made by a polyp which is a filter feeder which will ingest traces of Hg and other heavy metals in the water. A simple series of soil analyses can rule it in or rule it out. 

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. So Mr Cerniglia to explain it we are invariably drawn back to the Earhart freckle scenario and as I have said several times recently this leads us nowhere because no one has provided a single jot of evidence that she had Dr Berry's Freckle Cream with her on the fatal flight. Mr Gillespie has said that the freckle cream argument is not central to his theory and as far as I can see he has said that with very good reason, so if I might add who am I to disagree with the person running the show.

[Tim Mellon]

Yet another dead horse, IMHO.