TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: John Wallace on October 25, 2013, 02:09:24 PM
-
A Phd student in England, Pamela Cross, presented a study in 2011 critical of the reanalysis by the unfortunately now deceased Dr. Karen Burns of Hoodless' review of the skeletal remains found on Nikumaroro. The abstract of the study is on-line at:
http://www.academia.edu/1686043/The_Nikumaroro_Bones_and_Amelia_Earhart_Found_or_Still_Missing_Co-author_Richard_Wright_Professor_Emeritus_University_of_Sydney (http://www.academia.edu/1686043/The_Nikumaroro_Bones_and_Amelia_Earhart_Found_or_Still_Missing_Co-author_Richard_Wright_Professor_Emeritus_University_of_Sydney)
The abstract notes,
"This paper examines the re-analysis, original data and other sources to ascertain which of the results are best supported. The evidence suggests that the TIGHAR conclusions are significantly flawed and that there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations."
There is however no details at all that I can find.
This study was mentioned on an alternate forum, see there on July 10, 2013 (search on Pamela):
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/03/20/more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/ (http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/03/20/more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/)
There was some indication that someone was going to try to get more information but that was a few months ago.
I was wondering if anyone had any more information about the paper and any details about its reexamination of the reexamination? I also have found no academic/expert discussion or review of the paper by anyone else, but would be interested to be pointed to any. My apologies in advance if there is information here (or elsewhere) which escaped my search. Thanks.
-
Hi John
The thing for me with such forum talk like on Skeptoid is that you have 2 different kind of people running the show
On Tighar you have Ric who goes an does what other people wont do, He puts himself on the line, Follows his instincts and holds his hand up when he is wrong he has been to Nikumororo 10 or 11 times maybe more maybe less...
Then you have Brian Dunning of Skeptoid who has never even been to the area he thinks Amelia ditched into sea to be able to have the proof to back his claims.
It's one thing to get on a boat an search the area you believe she went down, Which Ric has done, But then when your are an arm chair expert you can find an pick holes in almost any investigation....
While this is not an answer to your question it is a reply to what i think is similar in what Brian is suggesting, As for Pamela i congratulate her on her achievements, However like in the building game in Liverpool UK u can have all the qualifications in the world but there is a big difference between fully qualified and time served
Thanks Richie
-
Sorry. I probably should have not mentioned/cited to where I first found reference to the study. Did not mean offense or to to endorse anybody/anything in some back-handed way. Ms. Cross is still listed among phd candidates at the University of Bradford, http://www.barc.brad.ac.uk/resstud.php (http://www.barc.brad.ac.uk/resstud.php); and I did not want to bother her if someone else had already asked her for details.
-
Hi John
Don't be offended, You just have to be able to accept the answers to your questions in a format that appears ignorant however are meant in the politest way :)
-
It's always easy to question the dead and their motives and methods - they aren't in any position to object.
I will note that the questioner in this case was trying to get her doctorate, and is questioning someone with decades of experience in the field. Doesn't mean the quesions are wrong, but - the suspicious part of my mind is saying, rather loudly, that she went after this case to "reexamine it" because of the relatively high profile of Amelia Earhart. Who is still capable of kicking up quite the ruckus, 77 years after her departure.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Monty i love u dude ;)
But while on one hand your meanings are valid
in the bigger picture they have no more meaning than that of anyone else including Pamela, If your essay is to conclude the Earhart Noon-an fate then me u Tim Burt Ernie will all suffer same fate because bottom line is there is NO 1, forum member from another forum to question that doubt, it is all speculation and based on facts it is only Ric an co who have been Niku and who are able to provide adequate argument to this convo
anyway i believe time tells
:)
-
I don't understand why the critique should be taken as a personal assault on Dr. Burns' good work - it is simply another learned opinion that is emerging (I won't quarrel over how learned or qualified in comparison - Dr. Burns is well admired in these parts around Georgia, for one).
'Critical' seems to have more to do with the process of analysis than taking personal issue with another professional's opinion. What better example for a student to take on than a high-profile analysis that essentially attempted to discredit Dr. Hoodless in the first place? That hardly singles Dr. Burns out as a 'target' - but Burns herself would have known that making such a high-profile statement would be subject to challenge, I'm sure. That is the academic norm.
I have not read the material (not released) so if I am mistaken and have overlooked some low-minded 'attack' then by all means, correct me. But the world of scientific quest is full of 'critical' opinions - which is one thing that makes it more credible and vital, IMO.
I am not criticizing Dr. Burns' work, BTW - I am not qualified to do so. As to the 'candidate' status that has been cited with regard to the other scholar - but similarly will not criticize that as I am not qualified for that either. But I think it is worth noting that brains and views of ethics are where and as we find them. I do take this, so far, as yet another emerging academic opinion and look forward to hearing more of it.
'He said, she said, mine's better than yours...' - I guess I'm just thinking we ought to be careful about judging how well qualified people might be in that field unless we are ourselves well-qualified. YMMV, of course - knock yourselves out. So many variables for the academic to ponder - and I recall even Gallagher had doubts - the bones were well weather-beaten. Must a graduate student be categorically dismissed or criticized as 'going after' Dr. Burns just for adding some different perspective? For that matter, there may be one or two among us who have good knowledge of the character traits of the skeleton and how certain features vary for various reasons. My own wife comes to mind, at this moment authoring a test for her anatomy students to take next week - but I will not invade her better effort to speculate on this for now...
If one challenges the ideas of Einstein, is one unfairly challenging the dead? I think Burns and Einstein would scoff at that.
I recall recent mention in this forum of a work glove that partially survived after several years of exposure after being left behind by TIGHAR at Niku. Apparently the 'uppers' survived, but where it touched the ground it was largely consumed. One might fairly ask then, why not something more of Earhart's clothing or effects not still being a bit more about when the skeletal remains were found? If the skeleton was Earhart's, then it had been three years - and who knows, if those were her poor remains then perhaps she had taken to nudism and left her clothing aboard the Electra to perish at sea. But it occurs to this poor mind as a bit odd that more wasn't found than that described by Gallagher if the wretched thing had only been there three years and was Earhart, who was well clothed in most pictures we see. Maybe the heat got to her, who knows. And I realize large crabs and rats might drag human remains off a morsel at the time, but do they have costume parties? Point being, that sort of thing could also raise a great deal of academic debate, I'm sure - especially where an assertion is being made that the remains were of a certain high-profile lost figure.
The professionals do count, of course - and no modern pro has been able to do more than rely on the notes made by others so long ago, so far. I'd like for Dr. Burns' to be infallible, but no one is - and all such opinions are just that - the best call made by a professional today based on what they can understand of the efforts of others so long ago.
Brains and the trained, critical mind (http://www.globalcognition.org/head-smart/critical-thinking-skills/) are where you find them. We who would search can only read of them and try to decide what 'markers' they represent for us to follow, or not.
-
Thanks for the update.
-
To my mind, from reading the abstract, Cross seems to start out with an agenda. "The conclusions of the TIGHAR reanalysis significantly contradict the original British analysis. The re-analysis is based on two primary areas: discrediting Dr. D. W. Hoodless’ analysis," Really? TIGHAR's re-analysis was intent on discrediting Hoodless? That's a pretty strong word to ascribe to someone's motives. Frankly, I find it difficult getting past her use of that term, forget her analysis or anything else that follows, that's been tainted. I'm more interested as to why she used such a judgmental term in her assessment of TIGHAR's analysis. Words mean things and beyond that the way they are used has implications well beyond their meanings. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it just seems to me that it's not very objective for a scientific paper.
-
To my mind, from reading the abstract, Cross seems to start out with an agenda.
Why not wait and read the paper? This thumbnail is hardly at the 'starting out' point - obviously the line of thought was well-developed by the time what we see was released.
"The conclusions of the TIGHAR reanalysis significantly contradict the original British analysis. The re-analysis is based on two primary areas: discrediting Dr. D. W. Hoodless’ analysis," Really? TIGHAR's re-analysis was intent on discrediting Hoodless? That's a pretty strong word to ascribe to someone's motives.
Is it? Had TIGHAR been willing to take Dr. Hoodless at face value we'd not have the partial skeletal remains at issue here, would we now? I take 'discredit' at academic face value, not tabloid; YMMV, of course.
Frankly, I find it difficult getting past her use of that term, forget her analysis or anything else that follows, that's been tainted. I'm more interested as to why she used such a judgmental term in her assessment of TIGHAR's analysis. Words mean things and beyond that the way they are used has implications well beyond their meanings. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it just seems to me that it's not very objective for a scientific paper.
I have no problem getting 'past' it and reading what she has to say. Substance (or lack of) will tell us more than taking a gut reaction to words taken at less than academic meaning.
And then again, perhaps she - and her co-author (worthy of note) may see the TIGHAR effort as rather pointed in a certain direction themselves, who knows? The world is not safe from such things. Bravo - you make your own choices about where to look based on your own opinions - I applaud that. But I'd 'get past' the gut reaction and read the paper before I personally decided...
-
...
And then again, perhaps she - and her co-author (worthy of note) may see the TIGHAR effort as rather pointed in a certain direction themselves, who knows? The world is not safe from such things. Bravo - you make your own choices about where to look based on your own opinions - I applaud that. But I'd 'get past' the gut reaction and read the paper before I personally decided...
Mea culpa
Nonetheless, were I to consider attending a paper session at a scientific conference based on that abstract. I would find it difficult to be open minded about her objectivity. I know that's hypocritical, but I'm only mortal.
-
I agree with you, Tim. "Questioning," "challenging," or "disputing" are just a few examples of more appropriate words, and much less potentially loaded than "discrediting." We can wait to see the paper, but IMHO it's a poor start.
-
I agree with you, Tim. "Questioning," "challenging," or "disputing" are just a few examples of more appropriate words, and much less potentially loaded than "discrediting." We can wait to see the paper, but IMHO it's a poor start.
From the abstract, quoted in part below, "discrediting" appears to have been clearly pointed toward TIGHAR's treatment of Hoodless' claims, not at what is intended by the author toward TIGHAR per se. If that is a poor start for others, fine; IMO it is merely definitive as to what has been approached by the study - a point of 'hypothesis', if you will.
The conclusions of the TIGHAR reanalysis significantly contradict the original British analysis.
That seems to be a fair statement of fact.
The re-analysis is based on two primary areas: discrediting Dr. D. W. Hoodless’ analysis, which identified them as belonging to a stocky, middle-aged male,...
A fact IMO, if the language is rather tart.
...and using Hoodless’ metrics in FORDISC to produce a finding of most likely white (European-type) female.
We are thus put on notice that the author clearly questions the approach used by TIGHAR, said approach being in fact, a fact.
It is clear that one should not attend there expecting to see an opener by a TIGHAR cheer squad. Any potential attendee is well advised of what to expect, I agree, to include -
This paper examines the re-analysis, original data and other sources to ascertain which of the results are best supported.
Quite fair and benign, IMO. But yes, there is the pointed point -
The evidence suggests that the TIGHAR conclusions are significantly flawed and that there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations.
That is rather conclusory, but not surprising given that again, I am sure the central thinking in this new analysis is mature, or we'd not be seeing this sketch. One of course would expect to see convincing 'evidence', as promised; one objectively would also hold with 'we shall see', I would hope and agree.
So look on that as one will - conclude, in fact, as one will. But to prejudge based on a 'poor start' by the brisk 'discredit' term might be to miss hearing just what this graduate upstart is to suggest, which may be a number of things, such as possibly something a) worthy of consideration, b) clearly game-changing, or c) of utter nonsense sloping toward mean skepticism. My best guess is "a", for now.
Whether one would bother attending would be up to them, of course. I will not be, and will await the paper's availability. The point however is one may go as prepared as one wishes - well equipped to leave having shot holes in what was heard if they will and are able, but one hopes without clutching prejudice so as to hear with reasonable openness what is offered, and then to judge.
I await the paper. I am not eager to see the partial skeleton relegated to the closet, but I cannot judge a challenge until I've heard (or read) it and defensiveness at this point has no place IMO. The thumbnail hardly seems offensive to me, especially in this search environment that constantly surrounds Earhart.
-
We don't have the bones, which increases the uncertainty of any analysis of the original Hoodless report. Burns pointed out that there are many places where we don't know how accurate his measurements were or what led him to draw certain conclusions. Without knowing why he made certain judgments, there is room for debate in how much one should accept those judgments. Burns raised many good points and interesting questions; it will be interesting to see what another researcher has to say about those points, as well as about the original analysis itself.
-
We don't have the bones, which increases the uncertainty of any analysis of the original Hoodless report. Burns pointed out that there are many places where we don't know how accurate his measurements were or what led him to draw certain conclusions. Without knowing why he made certain judgments, there is room for debate in how much one should accept those judgments. Burns raised many good points and interesting questions; it will be interesting to see what another researcher has to say about those points, as well as about the original analysis itself.
Precisely, we don't. Burns was a most able professional and I would hope took adequate care to point out the ambiguities we are stuck with.
Barring having bones in-hand or truly knowing Hoodless' mind in the matter and how it related to the facts before him (which we can never truly know), I'm afraid we are left with room for a great deal of doubt. My thought is any criticism of Burns' views must include the very thing we hope Burns addressed - that infernal ambiguity as to just what the bones were like.
-
All,
Let’s all maintain our cool on this subject. Remember, Dr. Burns used “the most recent forensic software analysis program” from which she published her findings. Perhaps Ms. Cross has at her disposal a “more recent” version of forensic bone analysis.
Also, I haven’t read what Ms. Cross’s conclusions are other then she disputes Dr. Burn’s conclusions; does this mean she unequivocally agrees with Dr. Hoodless’s original conclusion or is there something in between Dr’s Hoodless and Burns?
What is Ms. Cross’s foundation of forensic analysis of the period (1940’s) medical records?
Remember, it is one thing to disagree with a theory and proving another.
Let Ms. Cross finish and publish her hypothesis/theory.
Ted Campbell
-
All,
Let’s all maintain our cool on this subject. Remember, Dr. Burns used “the most recent forensic software analysis program” from which she published her findings. Perhaps Ms. Cross has at her disposal a “more recent” version of forensic bone analysis.
Also, I haven’t read what Ms. Cross’s conclusions are other then she disputes Dr. Burn’s conclusions; does this mean she unequivocally agrees with Dr. Hoodless’s original conclusion or is there something in between Dr’s Hoodless and Burns?
What is Ms. Cross’s foundation of forensic analysis of the period (1940’s) medical records?
Remember, it is one thing to disagree with a theory and proving another.
Let Ms. Cross finish and publish her hypothesis/theory.
Ted Campbell
Absolutely agree, Ted.
If I have any notion of protest it is for prejudging her motives or assigning anything sinister to them i advance of even knowing the details of what is to be presented.
I'm certainly cool and will remain so - even after reading the published paper: we have nothing to agree or disagree with as yet, and even later it should merely add to our knowledge and give us more information to consider, whether supportive or not of TIGHAR's view in the matter. We cannot stilt our way to a correct answer in this search.
-
The re-analysis is based on two primary areas: discrediting Dr. D. W. Hoodless’ analysis,"
I'm cool, but I have 2 main problems with the announcement of the upcoming paper. First Ric and TIGHAR have said innumerable times that they are interested in the truth, whatever that may be, certainly not 'discrediting' anything.
The abstract of the study says:
there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations.
Second, in the "bones chronology" Dr. Hoodless himself said:
but if such a detailed report is required the obvious course to adopt would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Dept of the Sydney University where Professor Elkin would be only too pleased to make a further report.
For some reason he thought it might be a good idea to have someone else look at these bones, so I think that it was an excellent idea for TIGHAR to take another look at the findings.
I, too, will wait and see what Ms. Cross has to say, but I, too, think it is an inauspicious beginning (which does not necessarily mean her findings will be prejudicial).
-
All of this reminds me of the importance of guarding our artifacts. What about the finger-bone Tighar found? There is so much discovery/improvement daily with science/analysis techniques: Do we have yet an idea when the bone can be analyzed without totally destroying it?
If too much time goes by, it could be put aside and lost as was that skeleton.
--Lauren
-
The abstract of the study says:
there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations.
Since Hoodless HAD the actual bones, I think it would take a great deal of compelling evidence to invalidate the original findings.
Second, in the "bones chronology" Dr. Hoodless himself said:
but if such a detailed report is required the obvious course to adopt would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Dept of the Sydney University where Professor Elkin would be only too pleased to make a further report.
For some reason he thought it might be a good idea to have someone else look at these bones, so I think that it was an excellent idea for TIGHAR to take another look at the findings.
I think the operative phrase in that sentence is "IF such a detailed report is required" - more of a passive invitation for someone to pursue further if the need was seen, not so much a notion that it was necessarily required. Of no matter - the inviation stood for decades - and TIGHAR did what it could with Hoodless' findings, but not with the lost bones.
Not having the bones, as did Hoodless, does raise a challenge IMO. In the eyes of some that might be well enough reason to not challenge Hoodless.
-
I think the operative phrase in that sentence is "IF such a detailed report is required" - more of a passive invitation for someone to pursue further if the need was seen, not so much a notion that it was necessarily required.
Quote the whole point that Hoodless made (from Bones Chronology):
"9. If further details are necessary I am prepared to take detailed and exact measurements of the principal bones in this collection, and to work out the various indices ( e.g. the platymeric index for the femur or the cnemic index for the tibia ) but if such a detailed report is required the obvious course to adopt would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Dept of the Sydney University where Professor Elkin would be only too pleased to make a further report."
One may readily infer from this that Hoodless is admitting that his measurements weren't as exact as the could have been.
-
That's interesting Tim, suggesting that all examinations are from flawed data?
Could be, maybe, not necessarily, I don't know. But I can see how measurement could be inaccurate - eye-balling it against a scale as opposed to using calipers for example. How would hoodless have taken his measurements? What measuring devices did he have at his disposal? My point is that Hoodless himself seems to have left open the possibility of more accurate measurements. There's a lot of possibilities there.
I'll have to track town the article that discusses Burn's re-assesment of Hoodless's data. I'll be interested to learn of the margin of error and the ranges of measurement.
-
Presumably two things exist, 1. A contract between Tighar and Dr Burns in which Tighar outlines the work for which it is paying, and 2. Dr Burns' work product satisfying the contract. Are these two items somewhere on the Forum for us to see and determine what Tighar's intent was? If not, Ric, can they be put on the Forum?
Two people, Dr Isaacs, and Dr Hoodless "examined" and measured the bones and concluded that they were from a male. Dr. Burns reviewed the reports of te other two and concluded tat their conclusions were inorrect, that the bones were those of a female.
IMHO, Amelia went down with her plane when it went over the edge at Gardner, Fred perished several days later and his skeletal remains were found by the Gilbertese settlers and given to Gallaghar.
-
Presumably two things exist, 1. A contract between Tighar and Dr Burns in which Tighar outlines the work for which it is paying, and 2. Dr Burns' work product satisfying the contract. Are these two items somewhere on the Forum for us to see and determine what Tighar's intent was?
Your first presumption is very bizarre.
Kar (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kar_Burns) was a volunteer and a dues-paying TIGHAR member.
Her "work product" has been available from TIGHAR since 1998 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html).
The "work product" indicates that two professionals came to similar conclusions working independently of each other (Burns and Jantz).
The "work product" also explains why there are reasons to think that Hoodless' conclusions were not sound.
I'm on sabbatical away from home, but Burns also was one of the four co-authors of Amelia Earhart's Shoes (http://tighar.org/wiki/Shoes) (2001). Those who are willing to bestir themselves to take in some information might want to check that book to see whether there are any traces of the "work product" there.
Unlike Burns and Jantz, the woman whose summary conclusions were highlighted at the start of this thread has not made her "work product" available for skeptics to pick apart.
-
Touche' , Marty ....
-
Marty was the implied tone of your response really necessary? You of all people shouldn't rankle so easily.
But, lest this reply be banished to some remote thread about forum frustrations, I'll get back on track by thanking you for the link to article discussing Burns's analysis. Given how convoluted the TIGHAR website can be, it took me 20 minutes to find it yesterday.
-
Given how convoluted the TIGHAR website can be, it took me 20 minutes to find it yesterday.
Tim, "convoluted" (like beauty) is in the eyes of the beholder. I myself, some time ago, have been known to admit and lament having difficulty (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,198.msg11626.html#msg11626) in refinding something I knew I'd read on tighar.org. But that's just because I keep trying to reinvent methods for searching, rather than using what's been provided -- by Marty! -- to turn "convoluted" into "beautiful."
Marty has done a good job of providing pointers for drilling down into the voluminous amount of bulletins and files and other holdings on the TIGHAR website. I recommend that everyone keep his pertinent FAQ (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,454.msg5497.html#msg5497), with its various types of search links, bookmarked. I find especially helpful the one that points to the nice outline of the holdings (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html) that has been put together (and updated, by Pat Thrasher) for our use. Using that latter one, I was able to search for the word anthropology and locate the aforementioned article about Kar Burns' report on the bones in less than 10 seconds, rather than wasting 20 minutes and then lamenting how long it took.
This response has been brought to you by one who has felt Marty's "implied tone" in the past
I'm not saying that Bruce is slow on the uptake. Really, no, I'm not.
but who knows that Marty's goal is always to help us become better-equipped researchers (I notice you, too, bear the "R" suffix to your TIGHAR member number).
-
Marty was the implied tone of your response really necessary?
No, of course not.
Was the implied tone of the question really necessary?
You of all people shouldn't rankle so easily.
Thanks for the kind and encouraging criticism of my character.
But, lest this reply be banished to some remote thread about forum frustrations, I'll get back on track by thanking you for the link to article discussing Burns's analysis. Given how convoluted the TIGHAR website can be, it took me 20 minutes to find it yesterday.
At the top of every page in the Forum, you will find a tab that says "Search TIGHAR."
It leads to a page that provides various and sundry suggestions for how to search TIGHAR (http://tighar.org/info/).- Thirty-second nutshell (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr1.html).
- Two minute description (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr2.html).
- Finding aid by subject (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html).
- Finding aid by type of document (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archives.html).
- Site map (http://tighar.org/sitemap.html).
- Index to TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/wiki/TIGHAR_Tracks).
- Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/FA)--includes an index and a companion CD.
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html).
- Outline of the basic story (http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart_Project#Background_Information).
- Highlights of the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Ameliapedia).
- Categories in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=14).
- All pages in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=0).
Toward the bottom of that page, there is a custom Google search box.
If you can think of a better way of helping people to search TIGHAR, please let me know.
-
Marty –
No criticism of your character intended. It just seems that I’ve long been of the wrong impression, which is my problem. I’ll endeavor to correct that.
As for assumed difficulty in finding things on the web site – I’m easily distracted. And as I tend to use the site map to find things, there are plenty of things there with which to distract oneself. Great that you have those links readily at hand though, I'll have to remember them next time a search returns less than intuitive results.
Getting back to the topic at hand – is there any knowledge of what guidelines or reference tools Isaacs and Hoodless were using in their analysis of the bones and how they may differ from the FORDISC analysis? What informed their conclusions? Perhaps what I’m getting at is that their conclusions may have indeed been sound based on the knowledge available to them. Context after all, accounts for a lot.
-
Did Hoodless know the context of the finding of the bones and that they might be Earhart's? Was it a"general" or "blind" analysis
-
I think the operative phrase in that sentence is "IF such a detailed report is required" - more of a passive invitation for someone to pursue further if the need was seen, not so much a notion that it was necessarily required.
Quote the whole point that Hoodless made (from Bones Chronology):
"9. If further details are necessary I am prepared to take detailed and exact measurements of the principal bones in this collection, and to work out the various indices ( e.g. the platymeric index for the femur or the cnemic index for the tibia ) but if such a detailed report is required the obvious course to adopt would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Dept of the Sydney University where Professor Elkin would be only too pleased to make a further report."
One may readily infer from this that Hoodless is admitting that his measurements weren't as exact as the could have been.
Tim,
That is a very fair observation IMO, and you've just made the whole point of this very well with me with that quote and your statement -
The fact is, we have direct evidence (Hoodless' own summary) in but one limited sense - that the examination left much opportunity for a more exacting analysis.
We have another definitive and limiting condition in that we don't have a record of a more exact analysis such as Hoodless suggests actually having been done. Hence we lack evidence of a more definite means of measurement, etc. that might serve to supervene Hoodless' more basic assessment. At the very least we are left with much room for error.
By that, I hardly see how a highly definitive / high confidence determination can be made from Hoodless' notes. What Burns had to work with was already fuzzy in terms of certainty as to the measurements she could have possibly relied on. I don't point that out to besmirch a fine and honest professional - I am sure a review of her report would show that those limitations were well acknowledge. But what Hoodless left us with is all we have to-date - and GIGO would seem to be a clear and present hazard, IMO.
I'm no pro so I am certain there is a fair chance that I will be subjected to some degree of impeachment commentary over this by those of a more optimistic view. But to me it is purely an elementary limitation, just a fundamental prospect of the investigative process: what Kar Burns had to work with was highly limited in the first place, and any 'product' would be accordingly bounded by those uncertainties.
In other words, despite the optimism her outcome provides, it is limited by the reality of very limited source data.
One additional consideration might be as well then an implication that not only did Hoodless not see the bones as likely candidates for Earhart's wretched remains, but that those 'in charge' similarly lacked enthusiasm for that pursuit for God alone now knows how many or what reasons. Not proof, but it just seems to me, to my disappointment I admit, that there is an implicit low-probability of these poor bones being Earhart's in the contemporary view, and that the more modern view is severely limited.
Again, I do not doubt Burns' sincerity - and expect that she likely accepted these limits openly (others may read and judge for themselves), so no lack of her integrity is meant to be implied; but the fact is, no matter how powerful her tools and methods, she was severely limited by Hoodless' admittedly limited 'product' in the first place.
As to -
Did Hoodless know the context of the finding of the bones and that they might be Earhart's? Was it a"general" or "blind" analysis
I think he was well aware if the whole record of how the bones arrived is considered, other's MMV.
-
All,
I think one of the things that has to be determined is what is the “tolerance” allowed in Burns’ analysis verses what Hoodless reported. I have a hard time in believing something greater then a half of an inch would make that much of a difference – but believe me I have no idea how sensitive the bone measurements have to be for the forensic analysis of today to work!
I would also assume that there are ratios e.g. bone length to socket size that has to be taken into account – and within a certain tolerance – to distinguish the difference between Asian and European origin.
I would suggest that those forum members knowledgeable in this forensic field chime in and help us out here.
Ted Campbell
-
I think one of the things that has to be determined is what is the “tolerance” allowed in Burns’ analysis verses what Hoodless reported.
Here is a link to the article, "Bones and Shoes." (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html)
It is possible to tell that it is a link because it is in a different color from the rest of the characters in this post.
What I mean by "link" is that you can "click" on the differently-colored characters.
If you do that, you will be able to read the article called "Bones and Shoes."
The article discusses the work that Burns did.
I believe it contains some clues about your question, though you have to transpose from your terms to the terms used in the paper.
At any rate, having clicked on the link and read the article, you will have some idea of how Burns and Jantz arrived at their conclusions.
-
All,
I think one of the things that has to be determined is what is the “tolerance” allowed in Burns’ analysis verses what Hoodless reported. I have a hard time in believing something greater then a half of an inch would make that much of a difference – but believe me I have no idea how sensitive the bone measurements have to be for the forensic analysis of today to work!
I would also assume that there are ratios e.g. bone length to socket size that has to be taken into account – and within a certain tolerance – to distinguish the difference between Asian and European origin.
I would suggest that those forum members knowledgeable in this forensic field chime in and help us out here.
Ted Campbell
Unfortunately whatever tolerance Burns would have applied would necessarily be subordinate to whatever tolerances or errors Hoodless may have made, thus potentially compounding any errors that Hoodless may have accidently built-in but that cannot be known without the bones in-hand, IMO.
Burns could only say something equivalent to 'the modern results are of course dependent on the measurements we were provided'. Perhaps somewhere in the referenced material Marty provided more can be discerned to that end, e.g. did Burns state that (rather certain she would have) and how then did she account for the range of potential error / can one meaningfully do so with reliability?
Just some thoughts from my unqualified opinion.
-
Burns could only say something equivalent to 'the modern results are of course dependent on the measurements we were provided'. Perhaps somewhere in the referenced material Marty provided more can be discerned to that end, e.g. did Burns state that (rather certain she would have) and how then did she account for the range of potential error / can one meaningfully do so with reliability?
I don't understand why you are guessing at what she "would" have said when what she DID say (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html) is readily available for inspection:
"The following paper was prepared by Karen R. Burns, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#kar) (TIGHAR # 2071); Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#dick); Thomas F. King, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#tom) (TIGHAR #0391CE); and Richard E. Gillespie, (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#Ric) Executive Director of TIGHAR, for release at the annual convention of the American Anthropological Association in Philadelphia on December 5, 1998."
-
Burns could only say something equivalent to 'the modern results are of course dependent on the measurements we were provided'. Perhaps somewhere in the referenced material Marty provided more can be discerned to that end, e.g. did Burns state that (rather certain she would have) and how then did she account for the range of potential error / can one meaningfully do so with reliability?
I don't understand why you are guessing at what she "would" have said when what she DID say (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html) is readily available for inspection:
"The following paper was prepared by Karen R. Burns, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#kar) (TIGHAR # 2071); Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#dick); Thomas F. King, Ph.D. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#tom) (TIGHAR #0391CE); and Richard E. Gillespie, (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#Ric) Executive Director of TIGHAR, for release at the annual convention of the American Anthropological Association in Philadelphia on December 5, 1998."
Thanks Marty.
Maybe partly because it is so tedious working through some of these 'papers' at TIGHAR that are laced with terms like "many speculative and not-so speculative alternative explanations have been advanced over the years" among the couching verbiage - it is laborious at times to understand just what was said in the pure academic sense. I don't mean to be offensive, but these 'papers' are not merely 'academic' but promoting as well. I understand in some degree the necessity.
But, you are correct - the appropriate caveat is present, verbatim:
"Skeletal measurements taken over 55 years ago by a now-deceased individual of unknown expertise, with no description of the methods or assumptions employed, must be used with great caution. In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, although Hoodless says that six long bones were present, he presented information on only three. For the cranium, he supplied only four measurements. We have no way of judging the reliability of the data he does present. The measurements he provides do not appear unreasonable, however, and in any event they are all we have to work with until the bones themselves are recovered."
So one "guesses" (not exactly my word, but not a bad figure of speech) that she covered her academic posterior accordingly well; very well, in fact: in short, by that very statement it is clear that we can't really know crap about the source of these bones for sure until we lay our hands on "the bones" - ANYTHING drawn from so scant a pile of relic data should be considered "with great caution" indeed.
So much for "hard evidence", as has been suggested elsewhere in these panels. I do not see it as such, but reserve now TIGHAR's suggestion regarding the bones "with great caution". What they did might be 'telling' if a mysterious and incomplete set of bones were found and it was wondered, "be this hominid, and if so, era?" or similar - but I am not certain that it even gets us close to "this be the aviatrix".
I was once very enthusiastic about these bones, tried to find the stomach again - but reality for now suggests they belong - figuratively - in TIGHAR's closet until the actual bones can be found. Until then we have merely a viscerally suggestive 'marker' by the thirteen bones of what COULD be (which is very close to a "guess", I guess). I yearn that the 'hard facts' (bones themselves) will yet turn up, and will report any tell-tale rattling in the attic so that every possible hiding place might be rifled.
With all due respect to TIGHAR's enthusiasm, and for instance as illustrated by Tom King's fine book on the 13 bones whereby we are given an excellent hypothesis not only of an Earhart presence but in detail a theoretical unearthing of her existence and even fading thoughts at her very sunset, IMO we have much to do if her presence in that place is to be proven. Short of Ric's pair of subs dispatching next year, it seems we simply ruminate over old cud at this point.
Perhaps the emerging challenge will raise some new thoughtful interest. And perhaps somehow the 'tsk-tsking' by a few over a grad student and her apparent mentor daring to take on Burns, et al's analysis has simply worn me thin on this item for now, but IMO it is easily fair game.
So my apologies, I realize this is not very uplifting - and hence not the discussion for me any longer. I now bow out of it, having adequately disgorged the bellyful I had gotten. :P
-
but i'd still be interested to view the whole paper.
This is the fourth or fifth time in the last two days that I am posting the link to the whole paper. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html)
Are there any other wishes I can help you to fulfill while I'm at it?
-
Relax Marty, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Pamela Cross paper.
-
I'm not sure we should be too worked up over this. This is based on an abstract for what looks a poster presentation at an academic meeting, not a published paper, such abstracts are not peer reviewed in any sense, just looked at to make sure the subject matter is pertinent to the topic of the meeting. The fact that no publication has been forth coming in the 2 1/2 years since it was presented probably indicates that the conclusions were not as convincing as the abstract makes it sound.
My own experience is in biochemistry but when I was a grad student and had to prepare an abstract for meeting ( usually about 2-3 months before the meeting was held) I often had only preliminary data at the time and wrote abstracts that were projections of where I hoped to be when the conference occurred, often the preliminary results didn't pan out and what I ended up presenting did not live up to the abstract.
I doubt she had access to any information that TIGHAR has not seen. Without the actual bones many alternate interpretations are possible based on how much weight one puts upon Hoodless examination and how you think he measured the bones. We should welcome any real, high quality academic input into the search whether it agrees with the Niku hypothesis or not
-
I'm not sure we should be too worked up over this.
Precisely - whatever it is, it is another opinion; it may or may not make some strong points / counterpoints. It has no bearing on "proof" of the Niku landing hypothesis, but YMMV, of course; the thing will never proven via the bones without... the bones (henceforth known as 'da bonz' to me).
This is based on an abstract for what looks a poster presentation at an academic meeting, not a published paper, such abstracts are not peer reviewed in any sense, just looked at to make sure the subject matter is pertinent to the topic of the meeting. The fact that no publication has been forth coming in the 2 1/2 years since it was presented probably indicates that the conclusions were not as convincing as the abstract makes it sound.
That is so, as to the first point, and perhaps so as to the last; who needs to 'discredit' something that essentially cannot be discredited anyway, it is much as if a position of 'barring real facts to the contrary, this ain't a bad idea' to me... but the exercise could be worthwhile. Perhaps that is just what the student found it to be.
My own experience is in biochemistry but when I was a grad student and had to prepare an abstract for meeting ( usually about 2-3 months before the meeting was held) I often had only preliminary data at the time and wrote abstracts that were projections of where I hoped to be when the conference occurred, often the preliminary results didn't pan out and what I ended up presenting did not live up to the abstract.
I doubt she had access to any information that TIGHAR has not seen. Without the actual bones many alternate interpretations are possible based on how much weight one puts upon Hoodless examination and how you think he measured the bones. We should welcome any real, high quality academic input into the search whether it agrees with the Niku hypothesis or not
Well agreed. I don't fault TIGHAR for having an opinion, but seeing the bristling here on one hand (not by TIGHAR, to her credit, that I've seen) of how dare another in academia challenge this vaunted opinion, we seem to overlook the obvious - that the vaunted opinion itself has severe limits. TIGHAR's view of da bonz is a wonderful idea; and yes, it looks carefully at the available evidence, however scant.
And should the paper actually emerge and knock TIGHAR's position off its feet, little has been done IMO... because without da bonz we will never really know, now will we? 'Scant' is the problem -
And having violated my promise I now go to lay my head to sleep, and pray for da bonz that they lie not deep, but in the attic where with care, they'll once again see fresh air; TIGHAR and crew rewarded thereby, should Amelia rest now to our lullaby...
Dem bonz dem bonz... where dem bonz is?
-
Relax Marty, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Pamela Cross paper.
If so, why did he quote the Kar Burns paper before saying, "I wish I could read the whole thing"?
It will be hard to discredit something that acknowledges;
"Skeletal measurements taken over 55 years ago by a now-deceased individual of unknown expertise, with no description of the methods or assumptions employed, must be used with great caution. In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, although Hoodless says that six long bones were present, he presented information on only three. For the cranium, he supplied only four measurements. We have no way of judging the reliability of the data he does present. The measurements he provides do not appear unreasonable, however, and in any event they are all we have to work with until the bones themselves are recovered."
That quotation is from a very interesting article entitled "Amelia Earhart’s Bones and Shoes?" (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html)
It is by Burns, Jantz, King, and Gillespie.
It is on the website.
It's been on the website for 15 years or so.
Then Chris says:
but i'd still be interested to view the whole paper.
He is talking about "whole paper" from which the part has been quoted. It seems to me to be pretty straightforward to think that when he says that it would be hard to disagree with a paper that has that statement in it, but he still would like to read "the whole paper" from which the quotation was taken, he means the paper that contains the quotation, not some other paper not yet mentioned in the post.
The "whole paper" from which that quotation was taken by Jeff is "Amelia Earhart’s Bones and Shoes?" (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html), not the unpublished paper by Pamela Cross.
-
Ok, I'll play -
If so, why did he quote the Kar Burns paper before saying, "I wish I could read the whole thing"?
"It will be hard to discredit": What item discussed in this thread is intent on discrediting something?
And that object of discredit would be: "Something that acknowledges [insert Burns et al quote]" = Burns et al paper
"but i'd still be interested to view the whole paper." What "paper" has been offered in this thread in a less than whole state?
Perhaps you English majors have gotten all hung up on the grammar (I had a prof in grad school like that, may he rot in HELL), but the rest of us understood what he was getting at.
Jeepers Marty. I hate it when you act obtuse.
-
Try a little tolerance of the fools who populate this forum ;D
You got it.
-
Perhaps you English majors have gotten all hung up on the grammar (I had a prof in grad school like that, may he rot in HELL), but the rest of us understood what he was getting at.
Jeepers Marty. I hate it when you act obtuse.
Thanks, Tim. I appreciate your kind and encouraging words as well as the fine example you set of the kind of behavior you'd like to see on the Forum.
-
Try a little tolerance of the fools who populate this forum ;D
You got it.
? ... !
-
Zzzzzzzzzzz.............. *snort* - whazzat?
Obviously I have my opinions - appears to me that 'da bonz' have been wrung about as dry as can be short of finding them again so as to add flesh to this mystery.
So we have a fine academic - Kar Burns, who lent her talents (and RIP, she was a great lady and academic) to this and of course was interested in the possibility of Earhart's presence on Niku.
Now comes an academic upstart, who with some introductory / speaking support from an apparent mentor is ready to take on what Kar Burns and Company arrived at. And it is all, by nature, "such as it is". Marty rightly pointed to Dr. Burns' own words - which were truthful in noting how limited our information really is. It seems to me that about all an academic critic could do with that is... repeat the same, and perhaps make some limited observation about the extremely limited data that suggests something other than what Kar Burns and TIGHAR thought possible: another opinion.
Now comes the gnashing of teeth - TIGHAR hath been set upon, how dare they - and other horsemen come and with halyards brandished say how dare others use such offensive tone in saying how dare TIGHAR, especially in attacking the dead? Even as those horsemen gallop to the front, others emerge from the wood with ruthless pikes - say ye, hath not TIGHAR dared tread on Hoodless own tomb?
Much ado about nothing. Burns could prove not, in the material sense, nor may her challenger prove her wrong - the position of the first was caveated appropriately, as Marty pointed us to; there lieth no contrary fact, nor that of support that taketh the corpse back from the crab's belly to flesh out... ah, time for a musical change-up - 'dem bonz' (sung to tune of 'dem bonz, dem bonz, dem dry bonz').
So now we digress into a somewhat freudian hatred of old professors (I liked Wolfson (affectionately "Wolfie") and Looney (affectionately "you're not really Looney") - he of university Economics and she of Composition and Creative Writing; not so much the nameless ones I don't hate but don't remember who laid that lash upon my ass over damnable sentence construction and grammer per se, they frequently having had little gift of the art (that is necessarily subjective, mind you) but were long-suffering technicians, generally.
Yea, Marty is a strict master; bless those who let us not escape reality and clutter the world with ill bordered histrionics, I bow to his better angels.
To the rebel, my heart is with you, for as "Wolfie" said often in his rule of the first order: "the world is full of bag ladies and con men, which are you" - and never explained, and most never realized we were all capable of being either on any occasion, or both at the same time within the mysts of our waking dreams called life. One must at times snarl and draw back to learn of whence another hath cometh, and of what he is about or the soul be countenanced not. Then, drawing back the bloody nub, one resolves to crenelate against the seige...
And we're off to the races. How's that for mixing metaphors and such.
I of course digress further, point being - truly, much ado about nothing here, and the further we get from academic discipline, the more motivated becomes the master to guide. It is his gift - some may find onerous, others may find oddly creative in it's own way. My friend Marty has a way of finally getting me to poke a stick at him from my crenelated heights at times, but he's never denied enjoying - or at least being afflicted with, that dastardly ability (I think he's proud of it, just as I am of bloviation at times...).
So have an opinion, and some fun - but hate not. Even as ye think of a despised teacher, be glad ye had one in freedom; as has been said in this part of the free world at times (biased as to my geography and nationality, but I'll not apologize...) - "if you can read and write, thank a teacher; if you do it in English, thank a veteran." Wolfie's rule of generality causes me to reflect on that: it can be good or bad, make of it the best you can, and be glad you have the opportunity.
I think dem bonz are dry for now, 'nuff said. Whatever my opinion, I'm glad to have a place of public recitation - where even my odd diversions MIGHT be tolerated (we'll see - this one is particularly whacky). So I hate not Marty for having said 'why dost thou 'guess' when one may know, knave, see the missive for thine own' self!', all while fully understanding the continued (and escalating) tendency to fortify against the seige of such tyranny...
In short, this one is a riot. *Snort*... Zzzz....
Added -
*Snort* - a-HEM!...
Someone said "wake up and read upstream, idiot"; alas, I turned on the light and it 'was but the dream of an idiot', but -
I quoted Kar Burns as she was 'explaining' that the hoodless report was less than credible/accurate/any other word you may wish to insert.
I think t'was a memory of this comment by Chris that worked its way into my sub-conscious self and wheedled at the sand-grain sized kernel of matter in my brain that deals with "logic", and it occurred to me -
To the degree that Hoodless' own report may be criticized, we have modern day Hoodless critics then who suffer a fate worse than Hoodless' own, where dem bonz are concerned:
If all they have is what Hoodless said (wrote, recorded), then all they can do is see what the modern 'machine' can make of that and whether it be in contrast to Hoodless' own conclusions, of course; they may differ with Hoodless' assertions, given what he recorded, but nothing firm can come of that since those same modern critics question whether Hoodless even did his work accurately or properly. We seem thus to have a 'conundrum'...
I sometimes wonder why this forum has stalled in recent times?
Perhaps the conundrums have come to be without means of furthrance; argue dem bonz, argue airplane stuff - argue a bottle in an old fire bed. Argue shoe(s), zipper pulls, argue context of these and more - anything you want. The problem may be, Chris, that we have long reached a point where those who believe in the 'circumstantial' as I'd call it (others have said 'hard evidence') are well satisfied and need no further discussion; those not so satisfied would by now be focused probably upon finding the airplane, and for them it is a matter of confidence in where to look, not further rumination over this sort of thing.
I am beginning to believe that we have simply run out of room in between - one is satisfied or not, but neither, by definition, is likely to be terribly caught up in this rollicking regurgitation of standing material, or simply stand non-plussed at the prospect of this now-stale challenge that, having not splashed near the isle of our fate so far, may not even surface as we here anxiously expect it to do.
In more direct terms - you either fer me, or agin me when it comes to 'she's at Niku' in the eyes of many, and many are happy to accept what's been given, or happy to await next year's mission.
Perhaps it is worse, but that is just a thought, I don't know. Just a thought... and I drift, off again... *snork*... zzz....
-
(we'll see - this one is particularly whacky).
Amen brother, but whistfully entertaining in its own way :)