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

Author Topic: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?  (Read 55938 times)

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2013, 07:03:31 PM »

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
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 #16 on: October 26, 2013, 07:18:11 PM »

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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Gloria Walker Burger

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2013, 08:26:40 PM »


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:
Quote
there is no significant reason to invalidate the original findings of the 1940’s examinations.

Second, in the "bones chronology" Dr. Hoodless himself said:
Quote
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).

Gloria
TIGHAR #3760
 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 08:36:11 PM by Gloria Walker Burger »
Logged

Lauren Palmer

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2013, 07:55:11 AM »

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
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 #19 on: October 31, 2013, 11:04:18 AM »


The abstract of the study says:
Quote
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.

Quote
Second, in the "bones chronology" Dr. Hoodless himself said:
Quote
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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2013, 12:17:39 PM »

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.
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2013, 01:37:24 PM »

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.
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2013, 03:04:59 PM »

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.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2013, 04:23:33 PM »

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 was a volunteer and a dues-paying TIGHAR member.

Her "work product" has been available from TIGHAR since 1998.

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 (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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2013, 08:05:06 PM »

Touche' , Marty .... 
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2013, 07:32:38 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 07:59:18 AM by Tim Collins »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2013, 08:54:07 AM »

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 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, with its various types of search links, bookmarked. I find especially helpful the one that points to the nice outline of the holdings 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).
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2013, 09:06:26 AM »

Marty was the implied tone of your response really necessary?

No, of course not.

Was the implied tone of the question really necessary?

Quote
You of all people shouldn't rankle so easily.

Thanks for the kind and encouraging criticism of my character.

Quote
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.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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2013, 09:51:51 AM »

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.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2013, 11:22:47 AM »

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
3971R
 
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