Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Another round on the fate of Amelia Earhart in today's news
    From: Brad Morris
    Date: 2018 Feb 24, 20:20 -0500
    I took the time necessary to read the paper, not just the news article.  I make no claim of being a forensic medical examiner and the paper, at times, lost me with technical terminology.

    In my earlier remarks upon this subject, in this email chain, I relied upon Dr Hoodless' estimation of sex to exclude Earhart.  

    Based upon this instant paper, I can no longer make the claim that the remains are definitively male.  The argument that Hoodless could have made an error in his assessment is entirely convincing.  Further, we cannot attribute that error entirely to Hoodless but rather on the state of the art at the time.  Again, very convincing.

    Jantz shows a reasonably strong correlation to three of Earhart's estimated measurements.  As Jantz states in his remarks, that would clearly fail a forensic identification, where the correlation needs to be much greater.

    Jantz makes a "preponderance of evidence" claim, but fails a basic logic test when he states that it's Earhart unless we can prove him wrong.  BUZZER SOUND.  Nay sir, Jantz has to prove that it IS Earhart, not the other way about.


    On Feb 24, 2018 6:32 PM, "Don Seltzer" <NoReply_Seltzer@fer3.com> wrote:
    On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Gary LaPook <NoReply_LaPook@fer3.com> wrote:

    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:

    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.

    The good news is that Jantz has finally written that paper.

    “Dr Jantz’s conclusion is quantitative. It is not an opinion; it is an expression of statistical certainty that should be replicable by any scientist with adequate credentials. The numbers are what they are.

    “And now, there is statistically a 99 per cent chance that the castaway on Nikumaroro was Amelia Earhart.”
    “Until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers.”

    Jantz's full article will appear in the second issue of the new journal Forensic Anthropology


    Don Seltzer

    View and reply to this message

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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