Earhart bones

[Eagleflight]

iowa61

"Those two members are impugning the credentials, records, and integrity of a scholar in a field of specialization different than theirs. They are simultaneously impugning the credentials, records and integrity of the blind peer reviewers in the same field--whom they don't even know. They are simultaneously impugning the record, reputation, and integrity of the esteemed scientific journal to which they have never contributed."


This is categorically untrue. And without doubt they are both in the field of expertise. One being an archaeologist and one an anthropologist. And one of them knows Jantz quite well and has worked with him.

You really need to expand your horizons and read other papers published on this subject.

[iowa61]

iowa61

"Those two members are impugning the credentials, records, and integrity of a scholar in a field of specialization different than theirs. They are simultaneously impugning the credentials, records and integrity of the blind peer reviewers in the same field--whom they don't even know. They are simultaneously impugning the record, reputation, and integrity of the esteemed scientific journal to which they have never contributed."


This is categorically untrue. And without doubt they are both in the field of expertise. One being an archaeologist and one an anthropologist. And one of them knows Jantz quite well and has worked with him.

You really need to expand your horizons and read other papers published on this subject.

Reread their comments; I don't believe they're subliminal. I absolutely stand by my statement. And I noted that the difference in their credentials was one of specialization.

[JohnB]

IOWA61

Since you're a fan of scientific principles, let's see if anyone, without a history with TIGHAR, can repeat the findings?

RG has no one but himself to blame for the skepticism seen here and the other forums.
He has used Glickman in the past to support his theories (seeing the rivet lines to make the aluminum scrap fit the Lockheed), and now he used Glickman's data and passed it onto Jantz.

If another proper study agrees with Jantz I'll listen.
If he's THAT confident f the results, he won't have any problem with a study being done with independent data.

In the meantime, it would also aid his credibility if he'd quit attacking the Australian study.
Poor form for a "real" scientist....as is not allowing opposing views on his forum.

[Eagleflight]

iowa61

Yes, I've read the paper thoroughly--that is Jantz's paper. I'm not aware of any published critique.

That is your problem and you're bloviating about something you know nothing about. You need to read more elsewhere. There are a number of professional critiques of the Jantz report that prove he is full of it.

[iowa61]

IOWA61

Since you're a fan of scientific principles, let's see if anyone, without a history with TIGHAR, can repeat the findings?

RG has no one but himself to blame for the skepticism seen here and the other forums.
He has used Glickman in the past to support his theories (seeing the rivet lines to make the aluminum scrap fit the Lockheed), and now he used Glickman's data and passed it onto Jantz.

If another proper study agrees with Jantz I'll listen.
If he's THAT confident f the results, he won't have any problem with a study being done with independent data.

In the meantime, it would also aid his credibility if he'd quit attacking the Australian study.
Poor form for a "real" scientist....as is not allowing opposing views on his forum.

I'm sorry but your statement doesn't make sense. Jantz's study WAS peer-reviewed--anonymously, by third-party scholars. It was also reviewed by the scientific journal in which it was published. That's how the publication process works; it's not trivial, it's rigorous, even brutal.

And Jantz in fact addresses the Cross/Wright critique in great and well-supported detail.

Again. I have no interest in the interpersonal grudges and unsupported beliefs; the only thing that is relevant to me is the science.

[iowa61]

iowa61

Yes, I've read the paper thoroughly--that is Jantz's paper. I'm not aware of any published critique.

That is your problem and you're bloviating about something you know nothing about. You need to read more elsewhere. There are a number of professional critiques of the Jantz report that prove he is full of it.

Please direct me to the "number" of professional, peer-reviewed and published critiques that "prove" Jantz's latest published paper is flawed and Jantz is "full of it."

Look forward to reading the critiques you reference very much!

[quemerford]

Blah blah blah and so it goes on, all in bold text. Cos that gives it credence: "I'm serious".

Anyone fancy a pint?

[iowa61]

Blah blah blah and so it goes on, all in bold text. Cos that gives it credence: "I'm serious".

Anyone fancy a pint?

You're incorrect. I put it in bold text to be helpful. Apparently I was not.

But I'd love a pint or two.

[Eagleflight]

IOWA61

Again. I have no interest in the interpersonal grudges and unsupported beliefs; the only thing that is relevant to me is the science.

Would you care to tell us what is your area of expertise in evaluating peer reviewed papers about science? Again you bloviate about you're knowledge of peer reviewed papers without the benefit of your own expertise or discipline? Give a rest Pal, you are not credible.

[Eagleflight]

iowa61

Yes, I've read the paper thoroughly--that is Jantz's paper. I'm not aware of any published critique.

That is your problem and you're bloviating about something you know nothing about. You need to read more elsewhere. There are a number of professional critiques of the Jantz report that prove he is full of it.

Please direct me to the "number" of professional, peer-reviewed and published critiques that "prove" Jantz's latest published paper is flawed and Jantz is "full of it."

Look forward to reading the critiques you reference very much!

Find them yourself, I am not your lacky. There are out there, let your fingers on your keyboard do the walking instead of you're mouth. You know where my website is, for as long as you are welcome.

[iowa61]

IOWA61

Again. I have no interest in the interpersonal grudges and unsupported beliefs; the only thing that is relevant to me is the science.

Would you care to tell us what is your area of expertise in evaluating peer reviewed papers about science? Again you bloviate about you're knowledge of peer reviewed papers without the benefit of your own expertise or discipline? Give a rest Pal, you are not credible.

I can't claim any expertise in the evaluation of peer-reviewed papers. But that's not how it works. Peer Review is conducted--usually anonymously--by colleagues of the author, in the same field of equal stature. Hence the term "Peer."

I am an advocate for the Scientific Method. As a writer and editor, I can claim to be very familiar with the process and requirements for publication of scientific research papers. I am also very familiar with the process for publication of proper critiques. However, there's nothing special about that; anyone can research those processes and protocols. They're hardly obscure.

I have no intention of "giving it a rest." Nor do I find your pronouncement of my lack of credibility troublesome. I will say this: There's no way I could have expected the hostility and weird, singular, agenda I've experienced on this purported "forum." So far, it's nothing but an echo chamber where challenges to preexisting ideas are not accepted, nor is the responsibility for claims that demand it.

[iowa61]

iowa61

Yes, I've read the paper thoroughly--that is Jantz's paper. I'm not aware of any published critique.

That is your problem and you're bloviating about something you know nothing about. You need to read more elsewhere. There are a number of professional critiques of the Jantz report that prove he is full of it.

Please direct me to the "number" of professional, peer-reviewed and published critiques that "prove" Jantz's latest published paper is flawed and Jantz is "full of it."

Look forward to reading the critiques you reference very much!

Find them yourself, I am not your lacky. There are out there, let your fingers on your keyboard do the walking instead of you're mouth. You know where my website is, for as long as you are welcome.

I have found no published and peer-reviewed critiques of Jantz's latest paper. It's unfortunate you will not direct me to same, but I'm beginning to understand that's what I can expect in this "forum." Thanks!

[Eagleflight]

Well as a writer and editor, identify yourself here on WIX or AM and as I say in the case of my forum. I have no further truck with you an anonymous troll.

[iowa61]

Well as a writer and editor, identify yourself here on WIX or AM and as I say in the case of my forum. I have no further truck with you an anonymous troll.

I have no problem with you labeling me an "anonymous troll." But as your alleged forum has demonstrated so well, it is best that ideas be proffered anonymously, lest they not be tested objectively.

You may have no "further truck" with me. But that will only reveal the lie of your, ahem, "forum." Your position speaks VOLUMES. And that will be true with or without my participation.

Good evening, Sir.

[JohnB]

IOWA61

Why haven't you engaged the folks in Aviation Mysteries?

If you have a point to make...or are spoiling for an argument...or if you want to make covenants...or restate your case...that's the place to be.
As I said, the knowledgeable critics are there.

Also, why the pseudonym?
Many of TIGHARS critics give their names.