PDA

View Full Version : Forensic expert claims bones found on Pacific island belong to Earhart


rotornut
8th Mar 2018, 20:03
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/07/bones-discovered-on-a-pacific-island-belong-to-amelia-earhart-a-new-forensic-analysis-shows/?utm_term=.66bd5be12af1

vapilot2004
8th Mar 2018, 20:16
More scientific information from the Earhart "car" thread (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/605956-amelia-earhart-s-car-found.html) here:

Richard Jantz, professor emeritus of anthropology and director emeritus of UT's Forensic Anthropology Center, re-examined seven bone measurements conducted in 1940 by physician D. W. Hoodless. Hoodless had concluded that the bones belonged to a man.

Jantz, using several modern quantitative techniques -- including Fordisc, a computer program for estimating sex, ancestry, and stature from skeletal measurements -- found that Hoodless had incorrectly determined the sex of the remains. The program, co-created by Jantz, is used by nearly every board-certified forensic anthropologist in the US and around the world.

The data revealed that the bones have more similarity to Earhart than to 99 percent of individuals in a large reference sample.

The new study is published in the journal Forensic Anthropology.

Jantz also compared the bone lengths with Earhart's. Her humerus and radius lengths were obtained from a photograph with a scalable object. The scale was provided by Jeff Glickman of Photek. Her tibia length was estimated from measurements of her clothing in the George Palmer Putnam Collection of Amelia Earhart Papers at Purdue University. A historic seamstress took the measurements, which included the inseam length and waist circumference of Earhart's trousers.

Based on this information, Jantz concludes that "until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers."

Questioning Hoodless's analysis had less to do with his competence and more to do with the state of forensic anthropology at the time, Jantz said.

"Forensic anthropology was not well developed in the early 20th century," the paper states. "There are many examples of erroneous assessments by anthropologists of the period. We can agree that Hoodless may have done as well as most analysts of the time could have done, but this does not mean his analysis was correct."

New forensic analysis indicates bones were Amelia Earhart's - Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180307115506.htm)

Full research text here thanks to Jhieminga's post: (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/605956-amelia-earhart-s-car-found.html#post10076986)

University of Florida Press - Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones:
A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques (http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/525/519)

sherburn2LA
8th Mar 2018, 20:34
Can't be right.

Wasn't she scientifically proven to have fired the fourth shot in Dealey Plaza ?

Or was that Elvis ?

KelvinD
8th Mar 2018, 23:29
The interesting thing was not so much the analysis of the bones but the fact the bones were lost decades ago. So what was the latest analysis done on?

vapilot2004
9th Mar 2018, 09:14
Measurements made by the physician (or researcher) in the 1940s that measured and cataloged the bones that were found.

Hokulea
9th Mar 2018, 09:51
From the paper:

"This presents us with an untestable hypothesis, not to mention uncritically setting aside the prior information of Earhart’s presence. The fact remains that if the bones are those of a stocky male, he would have had bone lengths very similar to Amelia Earhart’s, which is a low-probability event. Until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers."

Interesting, definitely, is it scientifically or statistically significant? No. The authors have gone to some length in this conclusion to make their conclusion sound more significant than it is. That's not how science works but it'll probably work in a court of law.

NutLoose
9th Mar 2018, 09:55
Some think it is a smoke screen to detract from recent comments about them

I think you should read this eye opener

TIGHAR - Finding Amelia or Living the Good Life? (http://myplace.frontier.com/~monty.fowler/tighar_analysis.htm)

MFowler
10th Mar 2018, 22:47
The thing to keep in mind about Jantz's reanalysis of the bones is that it is only as good as the data he used - and he got the data from TIGHAR.

It stretches the bounds of credulity that an organization that has such a vested interest in "solving" the Earhart mystery can be completely dispassionate in providing the information that might very well destroy their dearly-held theory.

Mr Optimistic
11th Mar 2018, 06:44
Would you turn to just bones so quickly?

chuks
11th Mar 2018, 12:09
Read up on coconut crabs. They can take a corpse down to bones pretty quickly, and Nikumaroro is within their range of habitation.

vapilot2004
11th Mar 2018, 12:25
Chesapeake Bay blue crabs too. It is common knowledge in the back waters of Maryland and Virginia, that hungry crabs could take care of a dead body pretty quickly.

Fareastdriver
11th Mar 2018, 12:58
A man's wife goes down to the beach for swim. When she didn't return he reported her to the police as missing. The evening a cop appears at the door holding a bag. He tells him that they have found her body on the rocks; there were some nice big crabs attached to her and he had brought a couple along for him.

He thanked the cop and then he was asked if he was doing anything at about midnight. He said that he wasn't so the cop invited him down to the rocks because they were going to pull her in again.

Mr Optimistic
11th Mar 2018, 15:52
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coconut-crabs-eat-everything-from-kittens-to-maybe-amelia-earhart-180948206/

....so I see