Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?  (Read 55935 times)

John Wallace

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27

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
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/
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.

Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2013, 03:02:30 PM »

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
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

John Wallace

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2013, 04:27:38 PM »

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; and I did not want to bother her if someone else had already asked her for details.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2013, 05:34:58 PM »

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  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2013, 06:29:58 PM »

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
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2013, 07:38:05 PM »

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

 :) 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2013, 10:06:29 PM »

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 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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 06:51:48 PM by Jeff Nevil »
Logged

John Wallace

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2013, 08:12:56 AM »

Thanks for the update.
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2013, 08:49:01 AM »

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. 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2013, 09:08:34 AM »

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.

Quote
"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.

Quote
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...
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2013, 09:20:09 AM »

...
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. 
Logged

Alex Fox

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2013, 11:32:12 AM »

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.
#4317
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2013, 04:53:53 PM »

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.

Quote
The conclusions of the TIGHAR reanalysis significantly contradict the original British analysis.

That seems to be a fair statement of fact.

Quote
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.

Quote
...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 -

Quote
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 -

Quote
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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 05:00:07 PM by Jeff Nevil »
Logged

Jennifer Hubbard

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2013, 06:02:54 PM »

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.

Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2013, 06:57:00 PM »

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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP