Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Another round on the fate of Amelia Earhart in today's news
    From: Gary LaPook
    Date: 2016 Nov 1, 18:44 -0700

    In 1940 some bones were found on Nikumororo, they were sent to doctor Hoodless who examined them and determined that they were the bones of a heavyset polynesian man.

     

    In 1998 Tighar had a hired expert, Jantz, re-evaluate Dr. Hoodless' conclusions and, relying on the measurements of the cranium made by Hoodless (the bones themselves have disappeared), Jantz proclaimed that Hoodless was wrong and that the bones were of a caucasian woman. In 2015 two other anthropologists re-examined the works of Hoodless and Jantz and published a PEER REVIEWED paper confirming that Hoodless was correct and that Jantz was wrong. Here's a link to the new paper on the subject by Prof. Richard Wright and Pamela Cross:


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300109

    Wright and Cross confirm the original Hoodless 1941 analysis of the bones found on Gardner Island; and they critique the re-analysis done by TIGHAR (Burns and Jantz) in 1998.

    Tighar has promised for the last year that Jantz would provide a new report disputing Wight and Cross but no such paper has been produced. 

     

    In lieu of the promised rebuttal from Tighar's anthropologist, Tighar now bring out their photo-interpreter expert to take a different bite at the apple. Glickman is not an anthropologist but claims to be a photo interpreter. In the past he interpreted a photo taken in 1938 as showing a landing gear from Earhart's plane sticking up, up-side down, from the reef at Nikumororo. Tighar claimed that his interpretation was confirmed by independent photo interpreters at the U.S. Department of State so I filed an Freedom Of Information Act demand with that department and two years later, after I sued them, I received some internal documents that showed exactly the opposite, they "could not definitely say if it was or it was not an aircraft part"! See the actual documents on my website at:

     

    Tighar has also made claims that a piece of aluminum found on Nikumororo was a cover installed over an extra window on the right side of Earhart's plane. Tighar identifies this artifact as "2-V-V-1." The piece of aluminum has several rows of rivet holes that do not match anything on an Electra but the same Glickman said he can discern these rows of rivets with "hyperspectral imaging" on a photo of the plane taken in Miami prior to Earhart leaving of the around the world flight. Tighar promised that Glickman would produce a report showing this more than two years ago yet no such report has been produced. 

     

    So now Tighar has had this same Glickman photo interpret a photo of Earhart, wearing a shirt, to claim that he measurements of the arm bones made by Hoodless match what he can see in the photo of Earhart's arm bones. I am active on several Earhart discussions group and these are the posts  I made on them in response to these newest Tighar claims:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    ---------------------------------------------------This is GREAT NEWS!

    First it is good to hear that Glickman is still alive, I have been concerned that he was suffering serious health problems that had prevented him from completing the "lines of rivets on the photo of the window patch taken in Miami" report that was promised two years ago. I'm glad to find out that he is alright.
    And second, EVEN GREATER NEWS!

    This new report from Glickman now drives a stake through the heart of 2-V-V-1 being a part of Earhart's plane. Gillespie has said that the reason that that Glickman report has not been produced in the two years that have elapsed since it was promised was because Glickman didn't have the time to finish it since he was working on it "pro bono" (for free) and had other paying projects that demanded his attention. But now, since Glickman obviously had the time and resources (and enough other paying jobs) for him to work on the bones report then he obviously had the time to complete the window patch report so it must have been completed and then buried by Ric since it didn't support TIGHAR's theory. It only makes sense that Glickman would have completed that project, "pro bono," before taking on a new "pro bono" project for Gillespie. Since this provides proof that the "lines of rivets on the photo of the window patch taken in Miami" report was completed so it is obvious that it did NOT support Gillespie's claims about 2-V-V-1. 
    I have mentioned the standard California Civil Jury Instruction 203 that is given to all juries to instruct them on how to interpret evidence.

    "California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

    203. Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence
    You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence,you may distrust the weaker evidence."

    This is basically a presumption that the 2-V-V-1 Gllickman report DOES NOT support Ric's claim and most likely shows exactly the opposite.

    A common sense example. If you are playing poker and the other guy says he has a royal flush and reaches for the pot. You ask him to show his cards and he refuses. Seeing his cards is much stronger evidence that he does actually have a royal flush than just his verbal claim. Do you let him pick up the money if he won't show his cards? If the guy won't show his cards wouldn't you presume that the cards actually prove the opposite of his claim and that he did NOT have a royal flush?

    This logic applies to Ric's 2-V-V-1 claims. If the Glickman report supported his claim then he would produce it. Since he refuses to produce the report CACI 203 tells us we should distrust Ric's claims about the window patch.  And now Ric can't claim that Glickman didn't have the time to complete that report.



    GL

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here is the link to Glickman's arm bones report. 
    https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/78_EarhartArms/AE-Arm-FINAL.pdf

    Notice that he is "estimating" the critical measurement points through flesh and clothing. He also does his calculation in "pixels" with no comparison to the linear measurements made by doctor Hoodless. If his elbow data point estimate was off by just 4 pixels, out of a total of 618, pixels then the ratio would be the normal .73 not the .76 that Glickman comes up with. Or with an estimation error of the top of the humerus then a smaller error in the placement of the elbow data point would result in the same normal ratio. The same with an error of the estimate of the wrist. In fact, if there were only a 3 pixel error in the estimation of each of the three data points then you get the normal .73 ratio!  He even admits that since all the data points were "estimated" that he cannot place an error estimate on his results. This report is pure junk.

    And just how big are the pixels that Glickman is using? He doesn't tell us. But since he says that his measurement is of the same humerus that Doctor Hoodless measured at 25.4 cm and Glickman says that the humerus is 267.2 pixels long then simple division gives us the answer, each of Glilckman's pixels is 0.095 cm the same as .95 mm the same as 0.037 inches one-twenty-sixths of an inch. A three pixel miss-estimate would be only about one-tenth of an inch, through fat and clothes! Good luck with that!

    Oh, and by the way, when did Glickman become an anatomist?

    gl

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of my true joys in life when I was litigating airplane crashes was taking Glickman type "expert witnesses" apart on the witness stand under cross-examination, I saw lots of his type. He uses the standard methods they all use to bamboozle the jury. Notice how accurately he states his measurements of the bones, to one-tenth of a pixel, this is the type of things done to impress a jury of his accuracy. And it works unless someone like me gets him to admit the problems in his opinion on cross-examination. Looking at his accuracy claim, since we saw that one pixel was .037 inch then one-tenth of that in 0.0037 inches THREE POINT SEVEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH (about 4/1,000 of an inch). Anybody who has worked on his own car knows that you need a micrometer to measure anything to that level of precision yet he is telling us that he can estimate the ends of the bones under the layers of skin, fat, muscle, and clothing to thousandths of an inch accuracy! It may impress an uneducated juror but not anybody who gives it any thought. 
    Such BS!
    gl

    ----------------

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site