Okay, I'll bite on the bait.
I have a "bit" of scientific background. I have not read the article. I will do so, as soon as I am able.
But why is a person showing up here, un-announced, to defend the article here? Aren't there better forums for that enterprise? Or is the criticism hitting home?
Dr. Jantz's page on the University of Tennessee Knoxville describes his publications:
https://anthropology.utk.edu/people/richard-jantz/It seems he specializes (or at least is mostly published) in cranial measurements and his current project is based on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to improve means to confirm sex from cranial measurements.
https://www.nij.gov/Pages/welcome.aspxI'm not saying he is not qualified to make the estimates he has made from the information he has available to him (in this case photographs). For the good of the order, this method is used in cases where there is only remnant information regarding human remains which were previously recovered- think of photos of older excavations recoveries in cases where data was recorded and the actual remains may have been destroyed or pilfered during WWII.
Buy why would he tackle photos of long bones of Amelia Earhart if his specialty is cranial measurements? Not saying he doesn't have the qualifications, but I am wondering why he chose this particular forensic mystery as compared to others that are out there? Is it personal interest? Was he asked to get involved?
Once again, not to slight in any way the accomplishments of Dr. Jantz. I'm just curious why he chose this particular area of investigation. I will read the article when I can get my hands on it and post some more comments.