Earhart bones

[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.

[iowa61]

Not just odd but deeply embarrassing: here we have one group which has, with very little fanfare, located and conclusively proven their discovery.

While on the other hand, this bunch of T****R amateurs have thus far managed to prove nothing (and I don't mean 'prove by just reiterating that you have 'scientific proof' when you have nothing of the sort), make a massive fuss over minute, pointless "discoveries" and recover, um...nothing. And how long has it taken them to effectively do or prove nothing???

I'm sure the comparison between those two very disparate subjects will be lost on those involved, but they won't be fazed I'm sure: just so long as enough cash comes in, who cares what the output (or lack of) is?

1) What group is this that has "located and conclusively proven their discovery?" What is the testable evidence?

2) Dr. Jantz is no amateur. He 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. How does one achieve a higher level of scientific status than that?

3) Please read Dr. Jantz's paper and then tell us why it's not "scientific."

[JohnB]

Iowa61

If you're looking for a spirited discussion on the bones theory, you'll want to join the conversation at the Aviation Mysteries forum.
Among the members there are experts who can discuss Jantz's work at length.

http://aviationmystery.com/index.php?to ... sg7485#new

If you're so intent on defending the group, are you willing to say why the Cross study has been so thoroughly attacked by RG?

[Forgotten Field]

Okay, I'll bite on the bait.

I have a "bit" of scientific background. I have not read the article. I will do so, as soon as I am able.

But why is a person showing up here, un-announced, to defend the article here? Aren't there better forums for that enterprise? Or is the criticism hitting home?

Dr. Jantz's page on the University of Tennessee Knoxville describes his publications:

https://anthropology.utk.edu/people/richard-jantz/

It seems he specializes (or at least is mostly published) in cranial measurements and his current project is based on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to improve means to confirm sex from cranial measurements.

https://www.nij.gov/Pages/welcome.aspx

I'm not saying he is not qualified to make the estimates he has made from the information he has available to him (in this case photographs). For the good of the order, this method is used in cases where there is only remnant information regarding human remains which were previously recovered- think of photos of older excavations recoveries in cases where data was recorded and the actual remains may have been destroyed or pilfered during WWII.

Buy why would he tackle photos of long bones of Amelia Earhart if his specialty is cranial measurements? Not saying he doesn't have the qualifications, but I am wondering why he chose this particular forensic mystery as compared to others that are out there? Is it personal interest? Was he asked to get involved?

Once again, not to slight in any way the accomplishments of Dr. Jantz. I'm just curious why he chose this particular area of investigation. I will read the article when I can get my hands on it and post some more comments.

[Mark Allen M]

I don't know about this Iowa61 character but it sounds like he may be 'punking' a few of you guys. Ironic of a new member to show up on WIX with his only contributions being that of a "cheerleader" for a Doctor who thinks he has the AE thing all figured out. I have not seen, read or heard even as much as a sliver of any concrete evidence that's either logical or scientifically valid concerning the alleged bones of AE. Science is not, nor is it ever, exact science when infused with theory and speculation. Even if you are a leading expert in your scientific field, you still can't make 2+2=5. This Doctor should know that at a minimum. To state that this is "most likely" the bones of AE is neither scientific nor concrete. It's irresponsible and incorrect. A "scientific background" or "AE savvyness" is not required to practice common sense.

For those of you obsessed with a long dead female pilot perhaps the below "breaking AE discovery" from Ric Gillespie will give you some excitement.

"In 2007 we collected what looked like small chunks of brown dirt - but there's no real dirt at the Seven Site - just coral rubble. We wondered if it might be dried fecal material (not true coprolite because it's not fossilized). A lab in Canada extracted DNA but it turned out to be my DNA - contamination from touching it without gloves before we realized what it might be. We still didn;t know whether it was really fecal matter so we referred to it as the "Putative Poop" until just recently when the Molecular Anthropology Laboratories at the University of Oklahoma found a type of bacteria present that is generally only found in feces. So the poop is no longer putative. It's poop. Whether DNA can be extracted remains to be seen."

"I have read that you can re hydrate samples and look at what the last meal may have been. Reef fish, tinned mutton or sea bird. Apparently when re hydrated it becomes almost 'fresh' (including any oders)."

"If this stuff could be re-hydrated it seems like it surely would have been in 70-plus years of rain squalls. The poop is in good hands (so to speak) right now at the Molecular Anthropology Laboratories. They know that we want to know whatever we can learn about what the pooper was eating and any indication of health problems (i.e blood in the stool)."

How cool would that be to not only see and feel her sh*t but to smell it too. Who knows maybe her crap odor could drown out the crap odor of those bonesheads who still are obsessed with this topic.
And JohnB don't invite those knuckleheads to post over here again.

This is just another waste of time on WIX.

[Steve Birdsall]

I think Mark's very much on the money . . . and there's one line in Richard L. Jantz's study that I think is very much worth noting:"The most prudent position concerning sex of the Nikumaroro bones is to consider them unknown".

[iowa61]

Iowa61

If you're looking for a spirited discussion on the bones theory, you'll want to join the conversation at the Aviation Mysteries forum.
Among the members there are experts who can discuss Jantz's work at length.

http://aviationmystery.com/index.php?to ... sg7485#new

If you're so intent on defending the group, are you willing to say why the Cross study has been so thoroughly attacked by RG?

Thanks for the tip; I will. I will definitely look for the members with credentials comparable to Jantz's.

I am not interested in "defending" anyone or anything. I am extremely interested in work that is conducted with scientific integrity.

[iowa61]

Okay, I'll bite on the bait.

I have a "bit" of scientific background. I have not read the article. I will do so, as soon as I am able.

But why is a person showing up here, un-announced, to defend the article here? Aren't there better forums for that enterprise? Or is the criticism hitting home?

Dr. Jantz's page on the University of Tennessee Knoxville describes his publications:

https://anthropology.utk.edu/people/richard-jantz/

It seems he specializes (or at least is mostly published) in cranial measurements and his current project is based on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to improve means to confirm sex from cranial measurements.

https://www.nij.gov/Pages/welcome.aspx

I'm not saying he is not qualified to make the estimates he has made from the information he has available to him (in this case photographs). For the good of the order, this method is used in cases where there is only remnant information regarding human remains which were previously recovered- think of photos of older excavations recoveries in cases where data was recorded and the actual remains may have been destroyed or pilfered during WWII.

Buy why would he tackle photos of long bones of Amelia Earhart if his specialty is cranial measurements? Not saying he doesn't have the qualifications, but I am wondering why he chose this particular forensic mystery as compared to others that are out there? Is it personal interest? Was he asked to get involved?

Once again, not to slight in any way the accomplishments of Dr. Jantz. I'm just curious why he chose this particular area of investigation. I will read the article when I can get my hands on it and post some more comments.

Your characterization of his work is incorrect. Please read his peer reviewed and published article. And FYI, I didn't "show up" to defend Jantz's work. 1) I'm not qualified to do so. 2) My presence on this or any other forum has no relevance to Jantz's work.

[iowa61]

“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.

That claim is based on carefully measured probabilities and statistics--in the same manner as identification through DNA is accomplished.

It is a formal, scientific paper. Peer reviewed. Your concern is without merit.

Please read the paper.

[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.

I misread your post. Apologies! My mistake.

[PinecastleAAF]

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

So they could not belong to someone who is undocumented? Like the 11 or 12 people known to have drowned from the Norwich who were not included in the statistical reference because there is no data for them? That is called garbage in garbage out. This is an even worse leap than the supposed freckle cream jar.

[iowa61]

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

So they could not belong to someone who is undocumented? Like the 11 or 12 people known to have drowned from the Norwich who were not included in the statistical reference because there is no data for them? That is called garbage in garbage out. This is an even worse leap than the supposed freckle cream jar.

Many things are "possible." However, the calculated probabilities of the bones belonging to anyone other than Amelia Earhart are vanishingly small.

You need to read the peer-reviewed paper. Peer review is a rigorous, even brutal process by recognized experts in the field. With all due respect, the depth and rigor of their critique is far beyond yours.

[iowa61]

Iowa61

If you're looking for a spirited discussion on the bones theory, you'll want to join the conversation at the Aviation Mysteries forum.
Among the members there are experts who can discuss Jantz's work at length.

http://aviationmystery.com/index.php?to ... sg7485#new

If you're so intent on defending the group, are you willing to say why the Cross study has been so thoroughly attacked by RG?

Again. Thanks for the tip. Went over and read the "spirited" discussion. And it is that. Unfortunately, the forum participants do not have anything close to the expertise you suggested. They are not familiar with the Scientific Method. They do not grasp the significance of the probabilistic analysis. And they clearly have not read the paper.

One amusing note... somebody invited them to this forum to "challenge me."

Again. I AM NOT the issue at hand.

There is ONLY ONE paramount consideration in all this: Jantz's paper is a rigorously peer-reviewed work, published in a leading scientific journal. That represents the pinnacle of scientific rigor.

It is abundantly clear that many, if not all the participants in these forums do not appreciate what that means: Amateurs are going to have a significant challenge debunking the integrity and validity of Jantz if the best scientists in his field have not been able to do so. And that is especially true for those amateurs inclined to take potshots without the benefit of READING THE PAPER.

[PinecastleAAF]

Many things are "possible." However, the calculated probabilities of the bones belonging to anyone other than Amelia Earhart are vanishingly small.

That "vanishingly small" is an interesting choice of words. Where have I heard that before?

Since the study statistics don't include the ethnic data points of the drowned sailors nor the data points from the pacific islanders that inhabit that geographical area its garbage.

[quemerford]

Not just odd but deeply embarrassing: here we have one group which has, with very little fanfare, located and conclusively proven their discovery.

While on the other hand, this bunch of T****R amateurs have thus far managed to prove nothing (and I don't mean 'prove by just reiterating that you have 'scientific proof' when you have nothing of the sort), make a massive fuss over minute, pointless "discoveries" and recover, um...nothing. And how long has it taken them to effectively do or prove nothing???

I'm sure the comparison between those two very disparate subjects will be lost on those involved, but they won't be fazed I'm sure: just so long as enough cash comes in, who cares what the output (or lack of) is?

1) What group is this that has "located and conclusively proven their discovery?" What is the testable evidence?

Testable evidence? Well I think they convinced me when the name 'Lexington' came into view. The Devastator was then the icing on the cake. But I dare say Gillespie will come up with some churlish assertion that it was fake. Pathetic.