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 Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine Luftwaffe Resource Center WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific
Final Cut-The Post War B-17 Flying Fortress and Survivors - 5th Edition


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10123
The problem with "the science" is that the peer review is all opinion. It isn't like observing a chemical reaction that can be repeated dozens of times with the same result, where all reviewers would reach the same conclusion.

None of us is evaluating the actual scientific method. You are basing your opinions on your trust of a reviewer who is giving their opinion and could be right or wrong (and is anonymous to boot!).

What is the sensitivity of this analysis? Are the genetic factors from person to person, race to race and gender consistent? DNA analysis seems to yield results in the 99% or better accuracy range. Does the analysis in question rise to that level of accuracy? What is the metric of confidence in this analysis?

I think if you say the analysis shows that the result is consistent with Earhart's body proportions, that doesn't prove to me that what they have found came from her. Just like with a piece of metal, you can only determine plausibility. It might be the same alloy Lockheed used, but many aircraft used that alloy. Unless the piece of metal can somehow be tied unquestionably to an Electra and hers was the only one in the region, it is just cognitive dissonance- i.e. wishful thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:04 am 
Offline
Wing Commander
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 265
Quote:
Generally, a minimum of 2 peer reviewers (up to 6) are chosen for the peer review. Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their field. Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have a good track record of producing high quality reviews. Or they may scan the bibliography to identify potential reviewers or contact researchers they met at conferences and seminars. Many journals will first ask potential reviewers whether they are willing to review the manuscript before assigning them as reviewers.

Editors have to be careful to select reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise to do justice to the manuscript. Therefore, highly technical papers or papers from niche subject areas may take longer to review, because it may take editors some time to locate appropriate reviewers.
https://www.editage.com/insights/peer-r ... t-journals

It appears that the peer review process of Dr. Jantz' paper is deeply flawed.

Mr. Gillespie as a reviewer is not consistent with the peer review process as he has absolutely no credentials in forensic anthropology. And as the CEO of TIGHAR, one would consider he has a conflict of interest.

Dr. King is an archaeologist and being a board member of TIGHAR, and one would consider he has a conflict of interest as well.

We have no way of knowing the credentials of the unknown anonymous reviewer.

In as much as this is a very new Journal (2018), there was apparently little to no one in the pool of reviewers with the credentials to competently review Dr. Jantz' paper. And if the unknown reviewer was competent in the field he/she didn't do any fact checking.

"Editors have to be careful to select reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise to do justice to the manuscript."

I rest my case.

_________________
Doc Bob
aviationmystery.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
Wing Commander
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:03 am
Posts: 257
The lengthy dissertations are all way over my head again, but I've missed you guys :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 454
Location: Shalimar, FL
Outstanding summary of the errors in this articles "Scientific Method."
Mark_Pilkington wrote:
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

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 5708
Quote:
Outstanding summary of the errors in this articles "Scientific Method."

Agreed, and easily one of the premier "B*tch Slaps" I've seen on the internet in a long time.

I'd also say that Mark's evidence to summarize that 'iowa61' is most likely no other than Ric Gillespie himself is much more concrete and believable than Jantz's paper. Mark can count me as one of his peer reviewers lol.

_________________
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline
Wing Commander
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 265
Mark Allen M wrote:
Quote:
Outstanding summary of the errors in this articles "Scientific Method."


I'd also say that Mark's evidence to summarize that 'iowa61' is most likely no other than Ric Gillespie himself is much more concrete and believable than Jantz's paper.


Wrong!!! I can personally guarantee that iowa61 is not Ric Gillespie.

_________________
Doc Bob
aviationmystery.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 5708
Eagleflight wrote:
Mark Allen M wrote:
Quote:
Outstanding summary of the errors in this articles "Scientific Method."


I'd also say that Mark's evidence to summarize that 'iowa61' is most likely no other than Ric Gillespie himself is much more concrete and believable than Jantz's paper.


Wrong!!! I can personally guarantee that iowa61 is not Ric Gillespie.

Really?!!! ... then there you go. The first guarantee and concrete proof this thread has produced. Perhaps the guy will come back and 'man up' with an identity, or perhaps he'll just continue to remain an anonymous Troll .... which are the worst kind.

btw bravo on the block ... :roll:

_________________
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
old iron wrote:
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.


Reviewers typically don't "choose" to be anonymous. Again. There are well-established protocols for critiquing published scientific papers. Amateurs are welcome to take uninformed potshots, but they don't contribute to the science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 5708
iowa61 wrote:
Reviewers typically don't "choose" to be anonymous

Unlike you who typically chooses to be an anonymous Troll. I'm not sure who's more chicken sh*t, you or Mr. Block.

worthless thread that needs to be locked up. :evil:

_________________
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 1502
Location: Creemore Ontario Canada
Mark, as my dear departed Grandmother would say, "You're better to save your breath to cool your porridge!" :wink:

Andy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 5708
DH82EH wrote:
Mark, as my dear departed Grandmother would say, "You're better to save your breath to cool your porridge!" :wink:

Andy

Yah! you got that right Andy, another example of a lesson still not yet learned. Maybe one day it will sink in 8)
I need to turn this third monitor off and keep it turned off. :wink:

Meanwhile the 'punking' continues.

_________________
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty ...


Last edited by Mark Allen M on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:24 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 708
Location: Caribou, Maine
Iowa61 wrote:
Quote:
Reviewers typically don't "choose" to be anonymous. Again. There are well-established protocols for critiquing published scientific papers. Amateurs are welcome to take uninformed potshots, but they don't contribute to the science.


You are incorrect on this. Anonymous reviewers are anonymous because they specifically request that their names be known only to the editor. Most reviewers let the author know who is reviewing. This has been almost always the case in my experience (I have 60+ reviewed science papers, and have probably reviewed several times that many, over 30 years). Professional courtesy. (I have always let the author know that I am the reviewer, even where I have been scathing in my review, for how else is the author to know the credibility of the review).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
old iron wrote:
Iowa61 wrote:
Quote:
Reviewers typically don't "choose" to be anonymous. Again. There are well-established protocols for critiquing published scientific papers. Amateurs are welcome to take uninformed potshots, but they don't contribute to the science.


You are incorrect on this. Anonymous reviewers are anonymous because they specifically request that their names be known only to the editor. Most reviewers let the author know who is reviewing. This has been almost always the case in my experience (I have 60+ reviewed science papers, and have probably reviewed several times that many, over 30 years). Professional courtesy. (I have always let the author know that I am the reviewer, even where I have been scathing in my review, for how else is the author to know the credibility of the review).


You clearly have more experience than I and I defer to it.


Last edited by iowa61 on Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:25 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:06 pm
Posts: 1551
Location: Baltimore MD
Perhaps because of all the Devastator photos, my next question on this subject....

Does anybody have the recipe for "Chicken Poop Soup?"

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Pogmusic wrote:
Outstanding summary of the errors in this articles "Scientific Method."
Mark_Pilkington wrote:
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...

...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


Thanks Mark! Pat sends her best back and says she forgives you for that time at the museum you threw up on her dress... the stains never came out BTW... what the heck were you drinking? No problem. We've just always been curious.

And sorry, I don't recognize a post in a popular forum as a legitimate critique of any published scientific paper. There are recognized and well-documented protocols for critique; would love to see you go for it.

best to you and the lovely Bertha,

The guy you outed as "Ric"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], HMFischer, shrike, TBDude, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 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