Amen to that - about reading previous posts
I am looking at the
Jantz Report:
Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques | Jantz | Forensic Anthropology
It is a supposedly a scientific report but I am seeing some references to measurements taken and proffered to the good professor by Gillespie of TIGHAR and his photogrammetry 'expert', one Jeff Glickman, also said to be a member of TIGHAR.
The measurements in question are those taken from photographs of Earhart's arm length, supposedly through her flesh and through her clothing. There is also reference to measurements taken of her trousers (baggy or tight ?), seam lengths and waist measurements of same, which were also used on the production of the "More similar" end statement made by the good Professor.
Both Gillespie and Glickman have vested interests in the result they would wish for, particularly Gillespie who seemingly has those revolving eyes and the bell sound of a cash register wherever a report is made in favour of the TIGHAR Brand.
Monty Fowler, an ex-Member of TIGHAR and former large donor of sheckels into the TIGHAR till is now a vocal opponent of TIGHAR and he had this to say on the Key Forum:
"I have the utmost respect for Dr. Jantz - he is an internationally-recognized expert in his field. The key question for this "new" assessment of the Nikumaroro bones is where Jantz got the data that he re-analyzed to come to a new conclusion.
The data was provided by TIGHAR, which has an abiding interest in proving that the bones ARE from Amelia Earhart, and cannot by any stretch be considered a disinterested third party, seeing as how they considered it "an attack" on Jantz's original work, when another well-qualified professional questioned it."
The other well qualified professional that Monty mentions is Professor Richard Wright of Sydney, who combined with a Pamela Cross to write a 2015 paper in support of the original 1941 Dr. Hoodless assessment of the
"actual, in-front-of-him, real bones", Cross and Wright's paper contradicted the 1998 paper by Dr's Burns and Jantz; the paper which produced the astounding change of gender and produced:
"Female, Nordic extraction, 5 feet 9 inches tall" that we know so well.....and intimated
"guess who ?"
Thus we have some Professional pride involved here where Jantz can hardly be expected to denigrate his (and Dr. Burns) own paper of 1998. Jantz as a well-respected anthropologist could very well be seen to be affronted by a Professor of equal status daring to disagree on some unseen bones, long lost but seemingly now appearing out of cyber space....
Somewhere in all this and the happenings of the last few days, I did read somewhere that involved in the measurements of the bones by Glickman and produced with typical flourish by Gillespie were the words
"educated guess", but I can no longer find them.
Did this ring with anyone here and if so, where were those words "educated guess" ?