New Forensic Analysis Indicates Bones Were Earhart’s

Authored by news.utk.edu and submitted by Wagamaga
image for New Forensic Analysis Indicates Bones Were Earhart’s

Bone measurement analysis indicates that the remains found on a remote island in the South Pacific were likely those of legendary American pilot Amelia Earhart, according to a UT researcher.

Richard Jantz, professor emeritus of anthropology and director emeritus of UT’s Forensic Anthropology Center, re-examined seven bone measurements conducted in 1940 by physician D. W. Hoodless. Hoodless had concluded that the bones belonged to a man.

Jantz, using several modern quantitative techniques—including Fordisc, a computer program for estimating sex, ancestry, and stature from skeletal measurements—found that Hoodless had incorrectly determined the sex of the remains. The program, co-created by Jantz, is used by nearly every board-certified forensic anthropologist in the US and around the world.

The data revealed that the bones have more similarity to Earhart than to 99 percent of individuals in a large reference sample.

The new study is published in the journal Forensic Anthropology.

Jantz also compared the bone lengths with Earhart’s. Her humerus and radius lengths were obtained from a photograph with a scalable object. The scale was provided by Jeff Glickman of Photek. Her tibia length was estimated from measurements of her clothing in the George Palmer Putnam Collection of Amelia Earhart Papers at Purdue University. A historic seamstress took the measurements, which included the inseam length and waist circumference of Earhart’s trousers.

Based on this information, Jantz concludes that “until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers.”

Questioning Hoodless’s analysis had less to do with his competence and more to do with the state of forensic anthropology at the time, Jantz said.

“Forensic anthropology was not well developed in the early 20th century,” the paper states. “There are many examples of erroneous assessments by anthropologists of the period. We can agree that Hoodless may have done as well as most analysts of the time could have done, but this does not mean his analysis was correct.”

Earhart was the first female aviator to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. She mysteriously disappeared in 1937 while flying over the Pacific. Many assumed that her plane had crashed into the waters, and she and her navigator, Fred Noonan, were never seen again.

A group of researchers, including Jantz, believe she died as a castaway on the island of Nikumaroro.

Along with bones found in 1940, a search party discovered part of a shoe judged to have been a woman’s, a sextant box designed to hold a Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant, manufactured around 1918 and similar to the one Earhart’s co-pilot used, and a Benedictine bottle, something Earhart was known to carry.

The bones eventually disappeared, and what remained was metric data limited to four measurements of the skull and three of long bones—the tibia, humerus, and radius.

In reaching his conclusion, Jantz investigated other theories about the bones. He looked at the possibility that they may have belonged to one of 11 men who were presumed killed at Nikumaroro in the 1929 wreck of the Norwich City on the island’s western reef, more than four miles from where the bones were found. He also considered the possibility that they were the bones of a Pacific Islander.

He concluded that there was no documentation on the men and no evidence that any of them had survived the shipwreck to die as a castaway. The woman’s shoe and American sextant box also are not artifacts likely to have been associated with a survivor of the wreck. Nor was there evidence that a Pacific Islander had ended up as a castaway.

Based on all the evidence, the paper states, Earhart “was known to have been in the area of Nikumaroro Island, she went missing, and human remains were discovered which are entirely consistent with her and inconsistent with most other people.”

Jantz conducted the study in collaboration with the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR).

2greenlimes on March 7th, 2018 at 22:58 UTC »

Going to copy/paste my reply to a post on /r/history about this.

Very skeptical about this. The researcher in question is an expert in his field, no doubt, and Fordisc is widely used, but the research is still flawed. I see five major problems with saying this is the truth:

We don't know for sure how long Earhart's forearms are because there's room for error in an estimation from a scalable picture - so who knows if this is actually a match. While it seems like the tibia length was estimated better (using her trousers), there's still a chance for error there as well.

Archaeology (and forensic anthropology) rely quite a bit on context. Because the bones and associated artifacts have gone missing and were never documented in context, we have no idea if they are associated. It's entirely possible that these bones washed up on shore or were there for centuries and that the artifacts washed up separately nearby. We'll never know how old the bones are, and that is a huge problem here.

The forensic anthropologist here is saying that the old analysis is flawed because it's not up-to-date, and his analysis is the best modern one. The fact of the matter is, there's already been two other modern investigations into these bones in the last 20 years - both by qualified forensic anthropologists as well. One concluded that the bones belonged to a tall European female (but not Earhart specifically), while the other stated that the original analysis that the skeleton is male is most accurate because they were able to examine the actual bones and had the skull. His analysis is also flawed. Fordisc is great, but it's not perfect and last I heard it's never used to confirm an identity - just for a more accurate estimate of ethnicity and sex. Specific ID is done by DNA or dental records; neither of which can be used here.

99% isn't a guarantee. That just means these bones wouldn't match 99/100 people in his sample. Realistically, if this sample is representative of individuals living or travelling through the Pacific Ocean in the '30s (if we exclude the possibility that these bones could be much older than that), 99/100 people leaves a lot of room for it to be someone else. Assuming a conservative estimate of 1.5 million residents and visitors of pacific islands in the 1930s, those bones could belong to at least 15,000 people. Now, probably only a small fraction of those individuals both died and had their remains unaccounted for in that period of time, but I guarantee that out of those 15,000 it's more than just Amelia Earhart.

Most concerning to me is that they were looking to confirm their theory - not disprove it. That's not how good science works. Just look at what the researcher says: "A group of researchers, including Jantz, believe she died as a castaway on the island of Nikumaroro." - that suggests he had a preconceived notion of his correct answer. He also concludes "until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers." That's not how this works - it works like "until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are those of Amelia Earhart, we should not consider these bones are hers." It should be noted that the group of people releasing these articles and promoting this theory most fervently - TIGHAR - are known for sensationalizing things and coming up with stuff to confirm their theory.

braille_animalia on March 7th, 2018 at 21:09 UTC »

Okay, but (1) this wasn't based on analysis of the bones but rather of old measurements of the bones, (2) Amelia's measurements are estimates from photos and clothes, (3) the article is less definitive than the title ("until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers"), and (4) maybe I'm jaded, but I've seen a lot of Amelia theories followed a month later by "wait, sorry, not her..."

Nw5gooner on March 7th, 2018 at 21:07 UTC »

Having fallen into an Internet rabbit hole on this subject once before, I approached this article with some caution. The last line confirmed that this should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

Jantz conducted the study in collaboration with the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR).

TIGHAR have been desperately pushing and trying to prove their 'deserted on Nikamuroro' theory for years.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4295

This study was not conducted with an open mind, it was looking to prove a theory on behalf of the expounder of said theory.