Earhart bones

[quemerford]

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.

Nope - I for one didn't dismiss Dr.Jantz' credentials - just this report. Take another read of it, don't be swayed either way by "peer reviews", "very high bar[s]", "integrity" etc and just question what you are reading - impartially.

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.

This infers that you know who the peer reviewers are/were, as well as their credentials. Do you? And if so, who are they? If not then the statement holds no water.

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.

Again, a lot of supposition there: "very high bar", "the peer reviewers do not share their suspicions" etc. I think I'm happy with the process, having had many years' experience of peer reviews, technical approvals etc. In my experience it's not their remit to detect fraud, so I think it's a stretch to say that they might be capable of detecting it. It also seems that you know a lot about the peer reviewers. So again, who were they? Might they have a vested interest? Or were there in fact any? Just a fair question with no malice intended.

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've seen a lot of published papers: standards vary. So yes, there are established protocols for some, but none for others. Established protocols do not guarantee omission of errors or conflicts of interest. Or prevent the skewing of 'evidence' by the omission of anything that might disprove the expected outcome.

I think in this case, Dr Jantz was most likely supplied with a bunch of very old, biased garbage. And though Jantz may have done his best, he's only managed to put a mild lustre on what's basically a heap of age-hardened cr*p.

But irrespective of any of the above, you'd have to ask if anything which is generated by TIGHAR can be trusted? That question needs to be asked because that organization has done very little except denigrate anyone who disagrees with their latest theories. Can we reasonably expect that TIGHAR is always right and everyone else always wrong?

[Mark Allen M]

+1 for Mr. quermerford's response.

[PinecastleAAF]

One of the things the Jantz paper does to arrive at the conclusion the bones are Earhart's is assign a 10 to 1 probability that Earhart was on the island. This based on Tighar "evidence" such as the infamous piece of aluminum scrap. Now we find that the New England Air Museum identified that piece of scrap as an exact match to a C-47B wing almost a year ago.

Garbage in........garbage out.

[dirtysidedown430]

What no russians

[JohnB]

Is anyone really surprised by Jantz's "findings", RG's media tour/victory lap, or the revelation about the metal scrap (does RG have any shame?).

If any of you are I have some beachfront property in Montana I'd like you to look at.

[Kyleb]

One of the things the Jantz paper does to arrive at the conclusion the bones are Earhart's is assign a 10 to 1 probability that Earhart was on the island.

So, if the odds were really 1000/1 against her being on the island, his premise is only off by a factor of 10,000...

[old iron]

I am late coming into this discussion. Can somebody post the name of the journal, and if possible a link to the article? Thanks.

I have seen the statement that Jantz

is one of, if not the leading expert in his field. His article has been exhaustively peer-reviewed and published in an esteemed scientific journal.

Anthropology is not my field of study, but I do have some experience in the realm of scientific journals, though I have no idea what "exhaustively peer-reviewed" might mean (quemerford raises some good questions). I do not see much evidence to support the above quoted statement. Jantz' university webpage that has some essential information. He is emeritus (i.e., retired) with the last listed publication being 2008 (i.e., ten years old). The listed publications do not seem to me to be particularly "meaty;" many appear to be reviews ("The Anthropometric Legacy of Franz Boas" and a chapter in the Handbook on North American Indians are two the more recent examples). Most of the papers are fairly short, which would suggest these to not have detailed descriptions of methodology. I would expect a "leading expert" to have a more impressive resume and to be currently active in the field.

With the journal name we can easily determine the journal's Impact Factor, which shows how often papers in the journal are cited elsewhere. This would give us a handle on the level of "esteem" and "scientific."

[raconnel]

though I have no idea what "exhaustively peer-reviewed" might mean

His peers were exhausted after reviewing it.

Richard

[quemerford]

Oh that's very good. A nice place to end maybe?

[old iron]

Journal is Forensic Anthropology, which is in the first year of publication (initial issue, January 2018), and thus no impact factor is available.

The acknowledgments include:

Tom King and Ric Gillespie read at least two drafts and offered many helpful comments. Tom also provided helpful editorial assistance. An anonymous reviewer offered several useful comments which also improved the paper.

Tom King is cited for a tighar.org submission. The one (anonymous) reviewer is disquieting; I have in many peer-reviewed papers never seen less than two and seldom seen less that three reviewers. Submitting authors often recommend reviewers, so the one reviewer could well have been suggested by the authors.

[David Billings]

For old iron:

The link to the Dr. Jantz paper: http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/525/519

The main argument as I see it is that TIGHAR supplied the dimensions of bones by measuring the lengths of arm and leg "long bones" through flesh and fabric using photographs of Earhart. TIGHAR used Photogrammetist Jeff Glickman for this purpose and he compared photographs of Earhart standing by her Vega and also at the door of her Electra. There was also an investigative team that explored Earhart's trousers... only to find the waist measurement and the leg length from the seams. The report does not say whether the trousers were "tight" or "baggy", or whether the leg bottoms hung over her shoes, covered her ankles or ended half-way up the calf.

I consider any dimensions supplied by an interested party, such as TIGHAR, should be disqualified from the inquiry.

The latest on TIGHAR, I read today is that one enquirer was asking if it was possible to determine her hat size from the cranial measurements taken in 1941 or from this latest assessment and reported on by the good Dr. Jantz. Surely this is a worthy exercise to pursue.... I would also like to know what size her sunglasses were...

I do normally have an open mind but I am afraid to say that the door closed a long time ago when the 1998 Dr's Burns and Jantz Report changed the original Dr. Hoodless Report of "MALE, stocky build, 5' 6" possible mixed race, or islander" into "Female, 5' 9", of Nordic origin." But, then, what do I know. I am not an expert.

DB

[Mark Allen M]

Meanwhile there’s this really neat and historic old aircraft carrier that’s been recently found, but sadly no sign of freckle cream on the flight deck.

[Jim MacDonald]

Mark, Mark, Mark,

You don't get it. There are at least a dozen old aircraft carriers under the water out there. And obviously not that hard to find, it only took what, one or two days to find the Lexington. However, there is only one Lockheed Electra 10E registration number NR 16020. That is without a doubt a more rare and historic item to search for than some dumb aircraft carrier. Just ask Ric G., he'll tell you.

Mac

[Mark Allen M]

That’s a good point Mac, I never bothered to look at it that way. Someone needs to talk some sense into P Allen.

[iowa61]

For old iron:


I consider any dimensions supplied by an interested party, such as TIGHAR, should be disqualified from the inquiry...


...But, then, what do I know. I am not an expert.

DB

"I am not an expert."

Neither am I. And that is my larger point. There are extremely well-established processes for reporting on issues of science and critique of those reports. They are painfully slow and incremental.

I trust those processes.

As to where data comes from and under what conditions, for use in formal scientific reports--you don't get a vote. Neither do I.

Those issues are addressed in the peer-review process and in any formal critiques.