Earhart bones

[iowa61]

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.

[iowa61]

The bone guy is all over the news this morning. "Conclusive proof."

Very odd having this nonsense pop up again right in the middle of the REAL, genuinely astounding work the USS Lexington exploration team is doing this week.

I would be cautious about dismissing someone of Dr. Jantz's reputation and stature as a "bone guy" who traffics in "nonsense."

[Steve Birdsall]

One report states that "Richard L. Jantz used bone measurement analysis to determine that the skeletal remains, including a humerus, radius, tibia, fibula and both femora, found on Nikumaroro Island in 1940, match estimates of Amelia Earhart's bone lengths".

I think the key word here might be "estimates".

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Finally, the whining of the NeverTighar contingent becomes truly ludicrous as they try desperately to pee on scientific methodology from the heights of ignorance.

[Richard W.]

The bone guy is all over the news this morning. "Conclusive proof."

Very odd having this nonsense pop up again right in the middle of the REAL, genuinely astounding work the USS Lexington exploration team is doing this week.

I would be cautious about dismissing someone of Dr. Jantz's reputation and stature as a "bone guy" who traffics in "nonsense."

I'm more cautious of a new guy who joined the site only today just to argue about this particular issue.

[ZRX61]

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.

He's so good, he actually debunked his own claims... So while he may have been respected for earlier work, he stepped on his dick this time.

[Steve Birdsall]

“In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, the only documented person to whom they may belong is Amelia Earhart,” Jantz wrote in the study.

That seems awfully equivocal to me.

[Kyleb]

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.

The guy has never seen the bones. They disappeared decades ago. So he's relying on someone else's notes to make a conclusive argument about something that relies on probabilistic science, at best?

If he'd said "possible", or "unlikely" his opinion would have had credibility. What he actually wrote was astonishing for someone with <apparently> a reputation to uphold.

[iowa61]

The bone guy is all over the news this morning. "Conclusive proof."

Very odd having this nonsense pop up again right in the middle of the REAL, genuinely astounding work the USS Lexington exploration team is doing this week.

I would be cautious about dismissing someone of Dr. Jantz's reputation and stature as a "bone guy" who traffics in "nonsense."

I'm more cautious of a new guy who joined the site only today just to argue about this particular issue.

Really? I'm inviting you to review Dr. Jantz's credentials and then his peer-reviewed article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. This has everything to do with the verifiable science and the Scientific Method. So instead of focusing on me, I'd love to read your specific critique of Dr. Jantz's work.

Sound fair?

[iowa61]

Finally, the whining of the NeverTighar contingent becomes truly ludicrous as they try desperately to pee on scientific methodology from the heights of ignorance.

Are you saying that Dr. Jantz is "peeing on scientific methodology from the heights of ignorance?" And are you saying that the esteemed Journal "Forensic Anthropology" is conspiring with Dr. Jantz to commit fraud?

[iowa61]

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.

He's so good, he actually debunked his own claims... So while he may have been respected for earlier work, he stepped on his dick this time.

So your claim is that the Journal of Forensic Anthropology and the University of Florida press were either a) complicit in Dr. Jantz's fraud, or b) ignorant of Dr. Jantz's fraud.

Am I representing your position accurately?

And if I am, please explain how Dr. Jantz "debunked his own claims." And further, where is that revealed in his published paper?

Thanks.

[iowa61]

One report states that "Richard L. Jantz used bone measurement analysis to determine that the skeletal remains, including a humerus, radius, tibia, fibula and both femora, found on Nikumaroro Island in 1940, match estimates of Amelia Earhart's bone lengths".

I think the key word here might be "estimates".

I refer you to his paper which discusses at length the methodology he used to produce his extremely precise estimates. Love to hear your informed critique of those methodologies.

These are important, as they were used as key factors in the statistical analysis of potential matches to the skeletal profile, and Dr. Jantz approached these numbers with great care.

[Kyleb]

Really? I'm inviting you to review Dr. Jantz's credentials and then his peer-reviewed article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. This has everything to do with the verifiable science and the Scientific Method. So instead of focusing on me, I'd love to read your specific critique of Dr. Jantz's work.

Sound fair?

The critique is that Jantz is making estimates off of notes someone else took 75 years ago and is making absolute statements about those estimates.

[Steve Birdsall]

Surely "precise estimates" is an oxymoron.

[iowa61]

Really? I'm inviting you to review Dr. Jantz's credentials and then his peer-reviewed article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. This has everything to do with the verifiable science and the Scientific Method. So instead of focusing on me, I'd love to read your specific critique of Dr. Jantz's work.

Sound fair?

The critique is that Jantz is making estimates off of notes someone else took 75 years ago and is making absolute statements about those estimates.

If that's the "critique" it's neither logically nor scientifically valid, as the term "estimates" has not been qualified. Moreover, it suggests that none of the peer reviewers, nor the University of Florida Press have your qualifications to make these determinations.

Is that your contention? That you are more qualified than any of the peer reviewers or the University of Florida Press?

AGAIN. The specific boundary around the term estimates is quantified in the paper.

Please read the paper, in its entirety and respond.