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

Author Topic: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?  (Read 55926 times)

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 #30 on: November 01, 2013, 07:45:13 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.

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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2013, 07:22:07 PM »

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
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2013, 07:58:50 PM »

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."

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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
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 #33 on: November 04, 2013, 05:33:00 AM »

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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2013, 05:56:25 AM »

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 is readily available for inspection:

"The following paper was prepared by Karen R. Burns, Ph.D. (TIGHAR # 2071); Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D.; Thomas F. King, Ph.D. (TIGHAR #0391CE); and Richard E. Gillespie, Executive Director of TIGHAR, for release at the annual convention of the American Anthropological Association in Philadelphia on December 5,  1998."




LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
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 #35 on: November 04, 2013, 08:17:58 AM »

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 is readily available for inspection:

"The following paper was prepared by Karen R. Burns, Ph.D. (TIGHAR # 2071); Richard L. Jantz, Ph.D.; Thomas F. King, Ph.D. (TIGHAR #0391CE); and Richard E. Gillespie, 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
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »

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.

Are there any other wishes I can help you to fulfill while I'm at it?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2013, 11:10:47 AM »

Relax Marty, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Pamela Cross paper.
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • member #4155
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2013, 11:13:23 AM »

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
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 #39 on: November 04, 2013, 11:35:57 AM »

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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 11:38:35 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2013, 11:53:01 AM »

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;

Quote
"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?"

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?", not the unpublished paper by Pamela Cross.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 12:07:02 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2013, 12:24:32 PM »

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.





« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 12:44:48 PM by Tim Collins »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2013, 12:43:56 PM »

Try a little tolerance of the fools who populate this forum  ;D

You got it.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2013, 12:45:47 PM »

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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: academic critique of bones study: more detailed information available?
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2013, 12:57:05 PM »

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