Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?

[Ah.hell]

75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.

[Shibboleth]

Interesting review of data but I don't think that they can claim it is her in any way what so ever. Imagine if this was a potential murder case and they claimed they found the body by these criteria. Ridiculous. Without the bones themselves and DNA type information you cannot know for sure. Plus she is living in Brazil with Hitler. It can't be her bones.

[Noisy Rhysling]

Plus she is living in Brazil with Hitler. It can't be her bones.

And Elvis. She's having a ball. 

[CarbShark]

Sounds like people have made up their minds not based on the analysis of the evidence or even reading the article but more of a knee-jerk reaction to any report about the topic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ah.hell]

Sounds like people have made up their minds not based on the analysis of the evidence or even reading the article but more of a knee-jerk reaction to any report about the topic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's reasonable in this case.
A.  These stories come up a lot and are usually BS.
B.  It really doesn't matter enough to do much critically thinking, unless this is a topic you're really interested in then, cool, have at it. 

Its sorta like a story about the latest flying car.  Its not implausible except there have been hundreds of such stories that didn't pan out.

Edit to add, the evidence is that the bones are the right length based on comparisons to old photos, meh, not very compelling.

[Noisy Rhysling]

I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.

[CarbShark]

75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.

Here’s a quote from the primary researcher’s wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jantz

Richard L. Jantz is an American anthropologist. He served as the director of the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility from 1998–2011 and he is the current Professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research focuses primarily on forensic anthropology, skeletal biology, dermatoglyphics, anthropometry, anthropological genetics, and human variation, as well as developing computerized databases in these areas which aid in anthropological research. The author of over a hundred journal articles and other publications, his research has helped lead and shape the field of physical and forensic anthropology for many years.

Not one of the usual suspects. Also the article was peer reviewed and published in a well respected journal in the field.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CarbShark]

I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.

I understand that reluctance.

But there is noting wrong with being wrong as long as you’re open to that possibility and when faced with evidence that casts your position in doubt, you give it the same credibility as evidence that supports your position.

And be ready to change your position and admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong in that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shibboleth]

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available. 

[Noisy Rhysling]

I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.

I understand that reluctance.

But there is noting wrong with being wrong as long as you’re open to that possibility and when faced with evidence that casts your position in doubt, you give it the same credibility as evidence that supports your position.

And be ready to change your position and admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong in that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, but not the way I work. I'm not an early adopter of electronics, for instance. My phone had a wire on it until '08.

[Ah.hell]

75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.

He seems reliable, I still have my doubts about the methodology.  Comparing bone length to old pictures.

I also gave it a 75% chance of being BS, so room for doubt. I'd say, revisit in a few months and see what holes other experts have poked in the story.   

Here’s a quote from the primary researcher’s wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jantz

Richard L. Jantz is an American anthropologist. He served as the director of the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility from 1998–2011 and he is the current Professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research focuses primarily on forensic anthropology, skeletal biology, dermatoglyphics, anthropometry, anthropological genetics, and human variation, as well as developing computerized databases in these areas which aid in anthropological research. The author of over a hundred journal articles and other publications, his research has helped lead and shape the field of physical and forensic anthropology for many years.

Not one of the usual suspects. Also the article was peer reviewed and published in a well respected journal in the field.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CarbShark]

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available.

What makes this claim extraordinary ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ah.hell]

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available.

What makes this claim extraordinary ?

The history of false claims to the same thing.  That and it is a needle in a haystack problem.

[CarbShark]

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available.

What makes this claim extraordinary ?

The history of false claims to the same thing.  That and it is a needle in a haystack problem.

The root of this claim is that the contemporary (1940) analysis of the the evidence was faulty, which meant for decades that evidence was ignored.

If that's the case, then a number of those "false claims" may not have false at all.

As for the needle in a haystack, that's pretty well addressed. The remains and other evidence were discovered contemporaneously, they were thought to be her remains until the 1940 study ruled them out.

[Billzbub]

To me, there are two issues.  One is whether the author did a good job with his research comparing the actual bone measurements to her photos.  The other is whether the remains are actually hers.

Based on the author's credentials and my reading of the story, it sounds to me that the bone measurements reported would fit her.  Do any of you disagree with this part?  It would put you in a position of challenging a complicated expert opinion with your arm-chair diagnostics.

However, the second part is much more contested.  Just because the bones fit doesn't mean they are hers.  The author addresses this, too, but having not read anything else about this like the report someone mentioned here that she may not have even been in the area, I'm not ready to believe they are "probably" hers.  Still, I'm not ready to dismiss the idea, either.

Those of you who like looking at studies, data, and statistical analysis may enjoy reading it if you haven't already.  It's free!