Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements  (Read 11994 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« on: October 20, 2016, 03:29:26 PM »

Forensic anthropologist Richard Jantz is about finished with his re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements in response to Australian archaeologist Richard Wright’s 2015 challenge to TIGHAR’s 1998 paper “Amelia Earhart’s Bones and Shoes?”.  It has been over two years since he agreed to take on this project.  As with Jeff Glickman,  he works along on pro bono work for TIGHAR as time permits. He'll probably be another few weeks before having his paper finished.

In addition to applying the latest databases for determining gender and ethnicity from bone measurements, Dr. Jantz has been working with me and Jeff Glickman to answer some key questions about AE’s physiology for comparison to the measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless in 1941. 
In the 1998 paper Jantz and Burns judged that the castaway was between 5’6’ and 5’ 7” in height.  Jantz wanted to know, how tall was Amelia really?  You may recall that Jeff was able to establish her height forensically as 5’7”, not the 5’8” she put on her pilot’s license.

A couple months ago, Dr. Jantz noticed something unusual about the Niku arm bones:
 
"The Nikumaroro bones have a relatively long radius compared to the humerus, a ratio of 0.756, compared to about 0.73 for women born about the same time as AE. That is well within the range of variation, but over 1 standard deviation above the mean. In one of the few photos I could find that show her with bare arms, I approximated the location of her humerus and radius, and the ratio in pixels 0.747, which is decent agreement, but I’d be more comfortable is Jeff did the comparison.”

Jeff selected a different photo to work from and undertook a forensic study. This morning I received Jeff’s full report (attached) and forwarded it to Richard Jantz.  Jeff's conclusion:
“Given the evidence and my experience in the field of photogrammetry and photointerpretation, I estimate that the radius-to-humerus ratio of Amelia Earhart in Figure 5 is 0.76.”

The results are even better than Jantz suspected. Simply put, the castaway and Amelia Earhart had the exact same unusually long forearms.  It ain’t a DNA match, but it ain’t bad.
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2016, 01:15:49 AM »

Ric,

With respect to the most recent study/findings of the “bones ratio” my inquisitive mind kicked into gear.  No disrespect to those who made the 1999 effort but new information deserves new consideration.

When the team went to Fiji in 1999 looking for the “Gallagher Bones” did they inquire about any forensic records on the human bones in use at the medical facility for routine teaching aids? i.e. not necessarily those of AE, but other specimens?

My point is this:  Rather then just throwing the “Gallagher Bones” away they may have been given to the school for training aids.  Give a bone to a student and ask that student to report back the size, characteristics, etc. of the specimen, which would have had data known before hand, to the instructor – i.e. detailed records (size, maybe not the origin, etc) but details of the specimen having been recorded earlier.

We now have a fairly good idea of the dimensional properties noted in Dr. Hoodless report and TIGHAR’s recent investigation; question, are there records at the school on the bones used for instruction that may match the dimensional properties of TIGHAR’s research?

Finally, if there are some bones that could match the specifics of the “ratio .756 “ bone pair can a non destructive test (e.g. drilling into marrow) extraction of material for DNA testing be accomplished?

This could be a long shot, but maybe not - AE’s reported ratios should not be very common in the area supported by the medical intuition e.g. teach the students the difference between indigenous people and that of foreigners to the region.  It only takes two numbers to determine a ratio in this case let’s ask them if they want to solve the greatest mastery of modern times.

Ted Campbell
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2016, 06:10:36 AM »

When the team went to Fiji in 1999 looking for the “Gallagher Bones” did they inquire about any forensic records on the human bones in use at the medical facility for routine teaching aids? i.e. not necessarily those of AE, but other specimens?

The report on the 1999 search for the bones says: "In the first week, the search team was made up of forensic osteologist Dr. Karen Burns and me, so much of our work – besides initial meetings with ministries, press conferences, and the like – was focused on finding and examining known collections of bones. Armed with Dr. Hoodless’ measurements, her calipers, and her laptop loaded with the FORDISC classification program, Kar first went through all the unprovenanced bones (i.e., those of unknown origin) in the collections of the Museum’s Archaeology Department. No matches. Next she examined the collection of the FSM Anatomy Department (we’d been told that this collection had been 'disposed of' when teaching methods changed at the School, but it turned out that a dedicated Lab Manager, Satya Deo, had saved it)."

Roger Kelley and I revisited FSM in 2003 during the second Fiji expedition and looked at the same collection of bones, as well as extending the search to burial and cremation records, bones held by the police, etc.

Quote
are there records at the school on the bones used for instruction that may match the dimensional properties of TIGHAR’s research?

Kar measured the bones herself.

There are no records of "bones used for instruction" from the 1940s.

Many of the files and materials left by Dr. Hoodless were destroyed in the 1950s.

Quote
... let’s ask them if they want to solve the greatest mystery of modern times.

My impression is that the last few ex-pats who represented the British colonial period had a certain kind of sympathy for our quest, but native Fijiians and the descendants of the Sikh indentured servants did not.  They do not consider the loss of AE and FN over the Pacific "the greatest mystery of modern times," and were not especially happy to be interrogated.

The third bone expedition "enjoyed unprecedented access in each facility due to the help of Richard Pruett, Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. in Fiji."  "While Quigg conducted research in the library, Kern, Overholt and Schorer examined, measured, and photographed the bones in the anatomy laboratory in hopes of matching one or more of them to the description and measurements of the Nikumaroro bones recorded by Dr. Hoodless in 1941. Upon completing the review of all bones in the anatomy collection (finding no matches with the Nikumaroro bones) Kern and Schorer visited the pathology lab next door and met with Romeo Dotollo, M.D. who assured them that only soft tissue examples were kept there."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2016, 10:38:52 AM »

Thanks Marty.  That's a more complete answer than I could have given Ted.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2016, 08:51:53 PM »

Thanks Marty.

My pleasure.

Thanks for sending Roger and me to Fiji!  :)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2016, 09:00:41 PM »

Marty,
Great response, thank you.
Ted
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Re-evaluation of the castaway bone measurements
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2017, 02:27:05 PM »

This is interesting stuff....modern day science working to solve old mysteries. In the interest of producing fine results, I appreciate the patience and deliberateness of the method, and the ones doing the work would most surely want us laypeople in this subject to be patient until they are satisfied, before delivering the final product.....

I have been looking at the data thus far, and in doing so, found myself searching for any numbers that would suggest what the brachial index of those in the surrounding catchment area, might be. In other words, do those Pacific islanders in the vicinity of Gardner , and/or does the average polynesian man have a brachial index similar to the bones found on Nikumaroro, ...how do they compare to a 5'6" Polynesian male, or a native Pacific Islander? I haven't found any really good information thus far.

It is unfortunate that arm bones from both sides were found on Gardner, instead of just one. We have good photos of Earhart's lower right bare arm (radius), and a few of her upper left, and it may be we can glean more useful evidence from some of these to help arrive at a conclusive result, in further support of those using other scientific processes, regarding those bones found on that lonely island.

I look forward to Dr Jantz's findings.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 05:06:06 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged
Pages: [1]   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