Earhart bones

[Eagleflight]

Well as a writer and editor, identify yourself here on WIX or AM and as I say in the case of my forum. I have no further truck with you an anonymous troll.

I have no problem with you labeling me an "anonymous troll." But as your alleged forum has demonstrated so well, it is best that ideas be proffered anonymously, lest they not be tested objectively.

You may have no "further truck" with me. But that will only reveal the lie of your, ahem, "forum." Your position speaks VOLUMES. And that will be true with or without my participation.

Good evening, Sir.

I am crushed at your response,

Goodbye and good luck TROLL.

[iowa61]

Well as a writer and editor, identify yourself here on WIX or AM and as I say in the case of my forum. I have no further truck with you an anonymous troll.

I have no problem with you labeling me an "anonymous troll." But as your alleged forum has demonstrated so well, it is best that ideas be proffered anonymously, lest they not be tested objectively.

You may have no "further truck" with me. But that will only reveal the lie of your, ahem, "forum." Your position speaks VOLUMES. And that will be true with or without my participation.

Good evening, Sir.

I am crushed at your response,

Goodbye and good luck TROLL.

Where are you going?

Have a nice time!

[quemerford]

Well he's probably off to have a conversation with someone who is prepared to discuss rationally about something interesting. This isn't either of those.

[Jim MacDonald]

iowa61,

I don't believe that anybody here has an issue with Dr. Jantz's credentials or his scientific methods. The main issue for most people here, including myself, is that the info for Dr. Jantz's report (no I haven't read it) was supplied by TIGHAR and Ric Gillespie.

The issue that people here have is with TIGHAR, Ric Gillespie and Jeff Glickman. After many years of following TIGHAR's search for AE and the repeated claims that they found the smoking gun, most people feel that TIGHAR's version of "Scientific Method" is anything but. Many reports that were promised to be forth coming and to be "Peer Reviewed" were never released.

Because of this, any info provided by TIGHAR is considered suspect to begin with and any results obtained with it is tainted by the feeling that the person doing the research is being manipulated by TIGHAR or the results are biased towards TIGHAR's conclusion due to the way the material was presented to the researcher by TIGHAR, what material was given to the researcher by TIGHAR and what was purposely left out and not given to the researcher.

Mac

[Courier Sportster]

can you say "vested interest?" a cornered animal is a dangerous one.

[Dan Jones]

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.

[Kyleb]

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.

Even if the airplane didn't sink immediately, I believe the only asset in place to look for her in the first week after her disappearance was the Itasca. So the airplane (or raft) could have floated for up to a week with very little probability of being found. After that, more searchers arrived, but it isn't like they did a comprehensive search with P-3's and C-130's on a GPS assisted grid.

[leo]

Thanks Dan, that's always been my thought. There is a lot of ocean out there and without a known area where do you look? I have also read many accounts by pilots of the day (Paul Mantz comes to mind) that state that she was not ready for this flight, her overall skills were not good enough at that point.
Personally until someone finds the wreckage at the bottom or has DNA evidence, a diary or written note PROVEN beyond any doubt to be hers, I won't believe it. Not that it matters in the grand scheme whether I believe or not...

[JohnB]

It' highly unlikely that the Electra floated for anything close to a week.
I've never heard of an aircraft floating that long.
And my lack or confidence in AE's flying skills in an emergency that she couldn't train for, adds to that.

One of the major TIGHAR contributors (before he had a falling out with,and sued, RG )is sure the plane lies just off the island where the bones were found. He's boosted photos on the Aviation Mysteries forum showing what he claims is coral encrusted wreckage. All I see is rocks...

[quemerford]

I do suggest reading Jantz' report: the bits where it attempts to massage the 'evidence' to get Earhart's height to fit the bones is verging on ludicrous. At that point, thinking about 'peer review' I began to wonder just what peers Jantz had for this 'report'.

Usually for something to be considered 'scientific' it needs to be done with an unbiased point of view, and with a hand on all the evidence, one way or another. Justifying why you'd trust the height on a driver's license but not investigating the process behind physical measurements of a pilot's license is just one example of the lack of proper science in the bones document.

Another statement, provided as fact but with no real evidence, is this daft thing where Gillespie et al try to have us believe that no other woman could have been on Niku. Of course, Dan's sensible scenario above is what common sense would have most of us believe (and also because nothing has ever been found), so Amelia or Fred were never on that atoll anyway, so taking the daft argument to the extreme, you get, "We found some bones and they belong to nobody". That's how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Ultimately you cannot pretend that a square pegs fits a round hole just because you beat the bejeesus out of it.

Anyway, Mr Gillespie will be along later to add his wisdom to all that I'm sure.

[leo]

Ultimately you cannot pretend that a square pegs fits a round hole just because you beat the bejeesus out of it.

One just requires a bigger hammer.

[Eagleflight]

Anyway, Mr Gillespie will be along later to add his wisdom to all that I'm sure.

Oh hell no, he can't stand the heat in this kitchen, because he can't control the dialog here.

[iowa61]

iowa61,

I don't believe that anybody here has an issue with Dr. Jantz's credentials or his scientific methods. The main issue for most people here, including myself, is that the info for Dr. Jantz's report (no I haven't read it) was supplied by TIGHAR and Ric Gillespie.

The issue that people here have is with TIGHAR, Ric Gillespie and Jeff Glickman. After many years of following TIGHAR's search for AE and the repeated claims that they found the smoking gun, most people feel that TIGHAR's version of "Scientific Method" is anything but. Many reports that were promised to be forth coming and to be "Peer Reviewed" were never released.

Because of this, any info provided by TIGHAR is considered suspect to begin with and any results obtained with it is tainted by the feeling that the person doing the research is being manipulated by TIGHAR or the results are biased towards TIGHAR's conclusion due to the way the material was presented to the researcher by TIGHAR, what material was given to the researcher by TIGHAR and what was purposely left out and not given to the researcher.

Mac

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.

[ZRX61]

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.

Last edited by ZRX61 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[leo]

Is this the same scientific community that tells me one day that coffee and alcohol in, even in moderation, will kill me? Then reverses that opinion in a year or two to tell me they are OK, then back to killing me, then OK? In my 60 years I have learned to ignore many of the "studies". The same ones that told me in the 70's that man made pollution will cause us all to freeze, then a few years later states we will burn to a crisp?
I have reached a point that my faith is only in what is in front of me. My opinion means nothing but to me, and so do most others, no matter how they try and justify it. Show me "proof" and I'll bet there are a hundred ways to DIS-prove it.