Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:11 pm
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??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.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:52 pm
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.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:54 pm
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.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:22 pm
Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:33 pm
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.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:58 pm
Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:14 pm
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
Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:36 pm
Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:47 pm
Mark Allen M wrote:Your welcome, glad you finally found something that explains you that you actually agree with.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:56 pm
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.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:07 pm
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
Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:08 am
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.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:02 am
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.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:04 am
I have every interest in advancing scientific rigor.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:37 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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