Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
ZRX61 wrote:
iowa61 wrote:
First, participants on this forum have in fact outright dismissed Dr. Jantz's work and by inference his credentials and reputation and those of the peer review scholars and the scientific journal of publication.

Second, Jantz's paper--in its entirety-which would include methodologies, integrity of data, scientific validity etc., has been peer-reviewed by scholars who are infinitely more qualified than anyone on this forum. After critiques were addressed satisfactorily the paper was then published in a prestigious academic journal.

The participants in this forum do not seem to recognize nor appreciate that process is a very high bar indeed. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers do not share their suspicions about what was and was not "left out" and for valid reason. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers are quite capable of detecting fraud. They do not seem to recognize that is the whole point of rigorous, scholarly peer review.

Moreover, there are very well established and documented protocols and standards for critique of published papers. However, they too require submissions to meet a high, scholarly bar. I am a writer, not a scholar. But in my lay opinion, I've seen no manner of criticisms on this forum that approach the required standards.


My take is he claimed there was a 99.9% certainty the bones were AE's without ever having seen them because they were lost decades ago... & it's all based on AE's measurements scaled from a pic of her stood next to an aircraft... even though his own published work contradicts his ability to claim that... So he effectively debunked his own findings & we're expected to accept them??

Quote:
This project’s goal is to improve the ability to estimate sex from cranial bones; in the absence of the pelvis, professionals consider the skull the second best indicator of sex. Currently, the accuracy lies between 85 and 90% for traditional sexing methods using cranial bones. The CT sexing project strives to increase this accuracy using CT scans of modern skeletal remains from the William Bass Donated Collection.


So we have a 90% accuracy for claiming the sex of the bones IF you have the cranium & this guy is claiming 99.9% accuracy they're AE's? He can't even claim that much accuracy in determining what sex they are by his own words AND he doesn't have ANY of the bones.




Your "take" on a peer-reviewed scientific paper, published in a legitimate scientific journal? Really?

You miss the point of my post in its entirety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:52 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6343
iowa61 wrote:
Your "take" on a peer-reviewed scientific paper, published in a legitimate scientific journal? Really?

You miss the point of my post in its entirety.

I've missing nothing about your point. It's still baseless. And his "take" is also my take and although I'm sure Dr. Jantz is well respected in his field, there's no denying that fact that his peer-reviewed scientific paper is misleading and contaminated with bogus samples to draw from. You can continue to preach about how wonderful the world is with Scientific Methods and peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in legitimate scientific journals all day, but you also continue to fail to supply any concrete proof that is needed to justify the validity of Dr. Jantz's paper or any of your arguments. If this is the best that he can do writing about AE and you can do explaining what he's written about AE, I'm respectfully sorry but you both fail .... period! Simply put, there's still no concrete proof of what happen to the poor gal, other than she's long gone. We can only hope she and FN didn't suffer.

IMHO you should probably quit your Trolling here and hop, skip and jump over to the link posted several posts back dedicated to all things "AE"

Are you a Warbird fan? If so there's plenty of other great threads here to follow. If not? ... FWIW Why be here? and that's not a question.

_________________
I don't have a short temper, I just have a low tolerance for hypocrites & narcissists ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Mark Allen M wrote:
iowa61 wrote:
Your "take" on a peer-reviewed scientific paper, published in a legitimate scientific journal? Really?

You miss the point of my post in its entirety.

I've missing nothing about your point. It's still baseless. And his "take" is also my take and although I'm sure Dr. Jantz is well respected in his field, there's no denying that fact that his peer-reviewed scientific paper is misleading and contaminated with bogus samples to draw from. You can continue to preach about how wonderful the world is with Scientific Methods and peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in legitimate scientific journals all day, but you also continue to fail to supply any concrete proof that is needed to justify the validity of Dr. Jantz's paper or any of your arguments. If this is the best that he can do writing about AE and you can do explaining what he's written about AE, I'm respectfully sorry but you both fail .... period! Simply put, there's still no concrete proof of what happen to the poor gal, other than she's long gone. We can only hope she and FN didn't suffer.

IMHO you should probably quit your Trolling here and hop, skip and jump over to the link posted several posts back dedicated to all things "AE"

Are you a Warbird fan? If so there's plenty of other great threads here to follow. If not? ... FWIW Why be here? and that's not a question.



Unfortunately, you too miss the point entirely. I am neither interested nor qualified to "defend" Dr. Jantz's paper. I have no "proof" of the Nikumororo hypothesis; I have only the opinion of a layperson.

You are entitled to have all the "takes" you want on any published scientific paper. But you would do well to understand the scientific value of "takes."

And thanks for your advice on my forum participation. I'm a huge warbird fan and have two sons professionally participating. But my definition of a "forum" differs from yours considerably and my participation is not dependent on your approval.

Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:22 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6343
Unfortunately your wrong for a countless number of times now. I do indeed get your point(s). sadly their still baseless and pointless to this conversation and have been that way from your first post, but unfortunately for you, you fail to get anyone else's points simply by either your obsession with the Scientific method you continue to preach and your obsessive defending of peer reviewed scientific papers. You claim to be neither interested nor qualified to "defend" Jantz's paper yet that's exactly what you've been trying to do. And for your information I do "quite" well to understand a lot of things scientific and Jantz's paper is one big scientific "failure" ... (and I too read his paper and it's nonsense)

You may have a different definition of what "forum" means than most of us here on WIX, and more power to you as that's your choice, but you would do well to understand the value of "proof."

As for your participation on this or any other forum, that's on you alone. You won't need nor will you get my "approval."

P.T. Barnum comes to mind.

_________________
I don't have a short temper, I just have a low tolerance for hypocrites & narcissists ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Mark Allen M wrote:
Unfortunaley your wrong for a countless number of times now. I do indeed get your point(s). sadly their still baseless and pointless to this conversation and have been that way from your first post, but unfortunately for you, you fail to get anyone else's points simply by either your obsession with the Scientific method you continue to preach and your obsessive defending of peer reviewed scientific papers. You claim to be neither interested nor qualified to "defend" Jantz's paper yet that's exactly what you've been trying to do. And for your information I do "quite" well to understand a lot of things scientific and Jantz's paper is one big scientific "failure" ... (and I too read his paper and it's nonsense)

You may have a different definition of what "forum" means than most of us here on WIX, and more power to you as that's your choice, but you would do well to understand the value of "proof."

As for your participation on this or any other forum, that's on you alone. You won't need nor will you get my "approval."

P.T. Barnum comes to mind.



Respectfully, you've demonstrated no understanding of my point--whatsoever. Rather, with each post you more thoroughly confirm the opposite.

You have an agenda that lies completely outside my areas of primary interest. And your confidence in your abilities and qualifications to authoritatively critique and expound on scientific papers is a trait I simply don't have.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6343
You continue to struggle with the basis of what this thread is about. Your points continue to be pointless with each post regarding the basis of this thread. You continue to try to defend your points when your points are irrelevant to the context of this conversation, yet you think their relevant to the topic.

Agenda? I haven’t had an agenda in years lol

You can keep trying I suppose. Best of luck to you

_________________
I don't have a short temper, I just have a low tolerance for hypocrites & narcissists ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Mark Allen M wrote:
You continue to struggle with the basis of what this thread is about. Your points continue to be pointless with each post regarding the basis of this thread. You continue to try to defend your points when your points are irrelevant to the context of this conversation, yet you think their relevant to the topic.

Agenda? I haven’t had an agenda in years lol

You can keep trying I suppose. Best of luck to you



Your post speaks for itself. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6343
Your welcome, glad you finally found something that explains you that you actually agree with.

_________________
I don't have a short temper, I just have a low tolerance for hypocrites & narcissists ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:47 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Mark Allen M wrote:
Your welcome, glad you finally found something that explains you that you actually agree with.


Uh. Right... I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 1665
Location: Creemore Ontario Canada
iowa61 wrote:
I am surprised and dismayed at the ease with which many are dismissing this effort by TIGHAR and Dr. Jantz--in apparent ignorance of the processes and principles governing the Scientific Method.

Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus at the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center. He is one of the most respected and distinguished scholars in his field.

His scientific paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a recognized scientific journal. These are the VERY HIGHEST standards of formal science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dr. Jantz presents that in unimpeachable form.

The bottom line conclusion is statistically based, in much the same manner as DNA analyses. The mathematical chance that the bones in question could belong to any individual other than Amelia Earhart is vanishingly small.


Mr iowa61,
With all due respect, you joined this forum with what appears to be the premise of defending Tighar and Ric Gillespie by referencing this paper produced by Dr. Jantz.
Most of us who are historic aviation enthusiasts, have observed over the years, that Mr Gillespie via TIGHAR has exploited many enthusiasts to get them to donate money to his cause. His track record has shown to most of us that he is nothing short of a bully and a grifter. His organization has collected over a million dollars in donations and has recovered nothing of substance. He will accept no view but those that further his (now bordering on ridiculous) cause. If you still fail to understand why this forum does not welcome your trumpeting of Dr. Jantz's paper, well sir, no further explaining will be of use.

Andy Scott


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
DH82EH wrote:
iowa61 wrote:
I am surprised and dismayed at the ease with which many are dismissing this effort by TIGHAR and Dr. Jantz--in apparent ignorance of the processes and principles governing the Scientific Method.

Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus at the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center. He is one of the most respected and distinguished scholars in his field.

His scientific paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a recognized scientific journal. These are the VERY HIGHEST standards of formal science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dr. Jantz presents that in unimpeachable form.

The bottom line conclusion is statistically based, in much the same manner as DNA analyses. The mathematical chance that the bones in question could belong to any individual other than Amelia Earhart is vanishingly small.



Mr iowa61,
With all due respect, you joined this forum with what appears to be the premise of defending Tighar and Ric Gillespie by referencing this paper produced by Dr. Jantz.
Most of us who are historic aviation enthusiasts, have observed over the years, that Mr Gillespie via TIGHAR has exploited many enthusiasts to get them to donate money to his cause. His track record has shown to most of us that he is nothing short of a bully and a grifter. His organization has collected over a million dollars in donations and has recovered nothing of substance. He will accept no view but those that further his (now bordering on ridiculous) cause. If you still fail to understand why this forum does not welcome your trumpeting of Dr. Jantz's paper, well sir, no further explaining will be of use.

Andy Scott


Your presumption about "why I joined" is incorrect in every regard. I have no interest in "defending" TIGHAR nor anyone else in this forum--nor have I attempted to do so. I have every interest in advancing scientific rigor.

However, your reaction to, and interpretation of my posts speaks volumes. We've come full circle. It's unfortunate that the mere advocacy of the Scientific Method elicits ad hominem attacks and vitriol directed in multiple directions.

I can only imagine what the reaction would be if I actually had come to the defense of targets of your scorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:08 am 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Caribou, Maine
Iowa61 wrote:
Quote:
His scientific paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a recognized scientific journal. These are the VERY HIGHEST standards of formal science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dr. Jantz presents that in unimpeachable form.

All this is arguable. There was only one reviewer, who chose to be anonymous (in my experience, the most reputable reviewers allow their names to be included in the acknowledgements). The journal is in its first year, second issue, so has no reputation. There is a very wide range of journals - a pecking order if you will. Some are of the very highest respect, while others are "unimpeachable" crap. My general impression - one reviewer for such a controversial topic, authored and supported by people who have shown considerable bias - is that this journal is angling for the second group.

The real question that needs to be asked is that if Jantz was confident about his "extraordinary science", then why did he not submit to a "recognized" journal -- he may well have, and worked his way down the pecking order. to get to where it was ultimately published.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:14 pm
Posts: 659
Location: Aerodrome of Democracy
Dan Jones wrote:
Here's my Earhart theory:

Though very nearby, they couldn't see Howland Island. They flew until they completely exhausted their gas, ditched dead stick, she probably botched it, and the wreckage sank immediately.

The only two people on Earth that are going to possibly find the remains of the airplane are Bob Ballard or Paul Allen, and it's nowhere near Nikumaroro. You can never solve anything by trying to force the "evidence" to fit a predetermined conclusion, as has been the case to date.

Just my two cents.

I'd enjoy a pint myself.
:drink3:


Still, after all these years the only sensible conclusion.
Nobody ever wants to listen to AE herself .
Read the radio transcripts , she is telling you the situation
AE 's voice is described as sounding panicky and shrill ...why because she knows she is in trouble
Outside of a statement from someone's boyhood recollection, there is 0 evidence that she had an alternate plan if she couldn't find Howland . The US Navy had no copy of a plan , Paul Mantz , who mentored her for the trip was unaware of an alternate plan.
If the plan exists , please direct me to an official copy of it.

_________________
...it was a plane adrift beneath the moon moving serenely thru beams like an angel of the night .....fair as a song ........aloof from mortal dreams


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:04 am 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 969
Quote:
I have every interest in advancing scientific rigor.


How's that working out?

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:37 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:55 pm
Posts: 1096
Location: Australia
Quote:
iowa61 wrote:
First, participants on this forum have in fact outright dismissed Dr. Jantz's work and by inference his credentials and reputation and those of the peer review scholars and the scientific journal of publication.

Second, Jantz's paper--in its entirety-which would include methodologies, integrity of data, scientific validity etc., has been peer-reviewed by scholars who are infinitely more qualified than anyone on this forum. After critiques were addressed satisfactorily the paper was then published in a prestigious academic journal.


Quote:
iowa61 wrote:
Again. You are incorrect and your claims are extraordinary. To dismiss a rigorously peer reviewed paper, authored by a respected subject matter scientist, as "garbage" takes a special kind of, uh, "confidence." You seem to have not read the paper and, or, are not familiar with the statistical and probabilistic techniques employed by Jantz.

MOST REMARKABLY, you presume that the peer review process failed to reveal the most basic methodological failures and you presume the academic publishing house did not catch the failure of the peer review process.



I'm sorry but there are some fundamental faults to your constant lecture of the "Scientific Method" here in the name of Tighar or in this case Dr Janz's work on their behalf.

Dr Janz's Fordoc program is acknowledged as having limitations but lets leave that aside, and recognise that most of his new analysis relies on photogrammatic estimations of Earhart's height and also the lengths of her arm bones undertaken from analysis of old photographs by Jeff Glickman.

There are apparent fundamental faults in the measurement accuracies claimed in Mr Glickmans estimates.

Quote:
Many colleagues, friends, and family members have contributed
to this paper in various ways. Ric Gillespie and
TIGHAR’s resources enabled me to get information from
Amelia Earhart’s clothing and from photographs allowing
quantification of several aspects of her body size and limb
lengths and proportions.


Mr Glickmans earliest "claim to fame" was confirming super 8 footage of a 7' tall Bigfoot creature was real, which instead was later admitted by the creators to be of a 6' man in a fur suit. Not a great endorsement of credibility or accuracy.

In Glickman's work at the NASM where he superimposes a picture of Earhart in front of her Lockheed Vega over a recent picture of the same aircraft now in the museum, he calibrates that superposition by aligning the engine cowl.

https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Arc ... -FINAL.pdf

Yet it is well documented that the aircraft has a different engine cowl in its museum display - he makes no allowance to the likely error that creates to his scaling factor - so much for the underlying "scientific method".

Image

Yet the cowling diameter is his scaling factor?

Image


and not only is there a visible overlay problem, the historical cowl is not the current museum display cowl, and their internal diameters appear significantly different?

Image


Image

The differences in the internal diameters of those two cowls is more than sufficient to render Glickmans height estimates to be worthless, yet Janz relies on it to support his Fordic analysis? - so much for the Scientific Method.


Worse, then Glickman estimates the bone lengths within Earharts arm from beneath clothes and skin, and Janz relies heavily of that work to again support his fordic analysis.

This is done once, on a single photograph of Earhart, where her arm is partially hidden by her shirt, and the ends of bones determined by fold lines in skin.

https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Arc ... -FINAL.pdf

Image


A true "scientific method" would apply and repeat this technique to a number of different photos of Earhart to demonstrate consistency of results, or alternatively - subject Glickman to a blind test of analysing the bone lengths from recent photos of 3 or 4 people in the same manner, and to then separately determine the real bone dimensions and ratio's of those 3 or 4 people through X-Ray. And to then ascribe a level of repeatability and accuracy to Mr Glickmans estimations.

No such controls were applied - so much for the scientific method.

However the BIGGEST failure of Dr Janz is to base the probability of these bones being from Earhart, (and not from one of the 8 missing crew members of the SS Norwich City ship wreck), is to ascribe confidence to his own work back on the "preponderance" of other evidence already showing Earhart had been on Gardner Island.

The reality is we are certain those 8 missing crew members arrived on Gardner/Niku aboard the ship and did not leave with the survivors, - hence its quite possible one (or more) was badly injured and survived in the ship or was badly injured and was washed ashore elsewhere on the island and in anycase, left to become the castaway - there is no such certainty that Earhart was EVER on Gardner Island despite Gillespies claims to the contrary and the swallowing of such claims, unquestioned by Dr Janz (and before him Prof. Eagar).

Quote:
The bones are consistent
with Earhart in all respects we know or can reasonably
infer. Her height is entirely consistent with the bones. The
skull measurements are at least suggestive of female. But
most convincing is the similarity of the bone lengths to the
reconstructed lengths of Earhart’s bones.
Likelihood ratios
of 84–154 would not qualify as a positive identification by
the criteria of modern forensic practice, where likelihood
ratios are often millions or more. They do qualify as what is
often called the preponderance of the evidence,
that is, it is
more likely than not the Nikumaroro bones were (or are, if
they still exist) those of Amelia Earhart.
If the bones do not
belong to Amelia Earhart, then they are from someone very
similar to her. And, as we have seen, a random individual has
a very low probability of possessing that degree of similarity.
Ideally in forensic practice a posterior probability that
remains belong to a victim can be obtained. Likelihood ratios
can be converted to posterior odds by multiplying by the prior
odds. For example, if we think the prior odds of Amelia Earhart
having been on Nikumaroro Island are 10:1, then the
likelihood ratios given above become 840–1,540, and the
posterior probability is 0.999 in both cases.


So Dr Janz identifies and admits his own statistical probability results to be quite poor, but then applies a 10 fold increase based on the fact Tighar is certain she was on the island due to "all the other evidence" (but there isnt any!!)

So Dr Janz (like Proffessor Over Eager before him on authenticating the 22V1 as definitely being the "Miami Patch") swallows assurances from Tighar that the rest of their "evidence" is beyond doubt, where is it is all VERY DOUBTFUL.

Janz' paper is hence built on a house of cards provided by Jeff Glickman.

(I am sure Prof "Over" Eager regrets not waiting for the chemical analysis which later showed 22V1 did not match the aluminum chemical compositions of 1937 but instead matched those of WW2, or even more recently that the rivet pattern on 22V1 matched the wingskins of a C49 Gooney Bird (a prewar impressed DC-3) that crashed on a nearby island and was the likely source of both the skin but also P&W 1830 engine parts! found on the island (ie not one piece of Electra has been found on the island although many parts of other aircraft have been.- I suspect poor Dr Janz was told NOTHING of those faulty aspects of the preponderance of evidence)

(Interestingly back in 2014 Jeff Glickman was going to provide a peer reviewed paper explaining how he was able to confidently detect and match those rivet lines in 22v1 to "those he could see" in the blurry Miami photograph of the then shiny window patch, strangely that report is yet to be published?, in the mean time chemical analysis and matching of rivet lines to a DC-3 Wing has effectively again seriously questioned Glickmans credibility.)

Quote:
In the present instance, readers can supply their own
interpretation of the prior evidence,
summarized by King
(2012). Given the multiple lines of non-osteological evidence,
it seems difficult to conclude that Earhart had zero probability
of being on Nikumaroro Island. From a forensic perspective
the most parsimonious scenario is that the bones are
those of Amelia Earhart. She was known to have been in the
area of Nikumaroro Island, she went missing, and human
remains were discovered which are entirely consistent with
her and inconsistent with most other people. Furthermore, it
is impossible to test any other hypothesis, because except for
the victims of the Norwich City wreck, about whom we have
no data, no other specific missing persons have been reported.
It is not enough merely to say that the remains are most likely
those of a stocky male without specifying who this stocky
male might have been. This presents us with an untestable
hypothesis, not to mention uncritically setting aside the prior
information of Earhart’s presence.
The fact remains that if
the bones are those of a stocky male, he would have had bone
lengths very similar to Amelia Earhart’s, which is a low-probability
event. Until definitive evidence is presented that the
remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing
argument is that they are hers.


Where as ALL of that other Tighar evidence from Gardner / Nikumaroro Island has proven to be PREPOSTEROUS!!! and the bone ratio and height analysis by Jeff Glickman underpinning Dr Janz paper has similar serious flaws.

So much for the Scientific Method

Peer review doesnt mean someone has repeated the tests and endorses the conclusions, it merely simply means someone with experience in the field can follow the the scientific argument, not neccessarily endoses it.

Quote:
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs


So yes, Dr Janz paper is peer reviewed by another forensic Anthropologist or similar qualification, but I suspect there is no qualified or peer review investigation of the issues I raise with Mr Glickmans work which forms such important foundational elements of Dr Janz paper?

The reports produced by Mr Glickman to Tighar which are the source of Dr Janz information are not peer reviewed at all, and if they were, the issues and errors I have identified above would surely need to be addressed.


By the way Ric, good health to you and Pat, its a pity your unwilling to permit such critical or skeptical debates over on the Tighar forum, and are unwilling to post under your own name here, or over on Aviation Mysteries.



Regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"


Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Champ driver, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MKD1966 and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group