骨探测

Michael Easter, Angi M. Christensen, M. L. Miller
{"title":"骨探测","authors":"Michael Easter, Angi M. Christensen, M. L. Miller","doi":"10.5744/fa.2020.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Locating clandestine graves is often a significant challenge for law enforcement and other investigators. A number of search techniques can be employed including visual assessments, canines, geophysical techniques, and imaging, often depending on the location/terrain, case information, and available resources. Dowsing is believed by some to be a reliable method for locating underground items of interest including water, oil, ore, and even graves; others, however, consider the practice to be controversial or even pseudoscience. Here we assess the ability of dowsing rods (wielded by previously inexperienced dowsers) to locate buried bones using a controlled blind test. Assemblages of bones were buried in three of nine holes. A control group of participants was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones by visual inspection, and a test group was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones using dowsing rods. Results indicate that neither method had a significant relationship with the true location of the bones (Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient –0.19 for the control group and 0.00 for the test group), and that there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.36). In this study, dowsing was not found to be a reliable method of detecting buried bones. Some practitioners continue to advocate dowsing or other scientifically questionable search methods, even charging investigators or families substantial fees for these services. It is therefore important that such techniques are well-understood and rigorously tested, and that investigators seek and employ methods that are appropriate and valid.","PeriodicalId":309775,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Anthropology","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dowsing for Bone\",\"authors\":\"Michael Easter, Angi M. Christensen, M. L. Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.5744/fa.2020.0024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Locating clandestine graves is often a significant challenge for law enforcement and other investigators. A number of search techniques can be employed including visual assessments, canines, geophysical techniques, and imaging, often depending on the location/terrain, case information, and available resources. Dowsing is believed by some to be a reliable method for locating underground items of interest including water, oil, ore, and even graves; others, however, consider the practice to be controversial or even pseudoscience. Here we assess the ability of dowsing rods (wielded by previously inexperienced dowsers) to locate buried bones using a controlled blind test. Assemblages of bones were buried in three of nine holes. A control group of participants was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones by visual inspection, and a test group was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones using dowsing rods. Results indicate that neither method had a significant relationship with the true location of the bones (Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient –0.19 for the control group and 0.00 for the test group), and that there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.36). In this study, dowsing was not found to be a reliable method of detecting buried bones. Some practitioners continue to advocate dowsing or other scientifically questionable search methods, even charging investigators or families substantial fees for these services. It is therefore important that such techniques are well-understood and rigorously tested, and that investigators seek and employ methods that are appropriate and valid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309775,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2020.0024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2020.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对执法部门和其他调查人员来说,寻找秘密坟墓往往是一项重大挑战。可以使用许多搜索技术,包括视觉评估、犬、地球物理技术和成像,通常取决于位置/地形、病例信息和可用资源。探测被一些人认为是定位地下物品的可靠方法,包括水、石油、矿石,甚至坟墓;然而,其他人认为这种做法是有争议的,甚至是伪科学。在这里,我们评估探测棒的能力(由以前没有经验的探测者使用),以定位埋葬的骨头使用一个控制盲测试。9个洞中有3个洞里埋着骨头。控制组的参与者被要求通过目测来识别他们认为哪些洞里有骨头,而试验组被要求用探测棒来识别他们认为哪些洞里有骨头。结果表明,两种方法与骨的真实位置均无显著相关性(对照组的马修相关系数为-0.19,试验组的马修相关系数为0.00),两组间无显著性差异(p = 0.36)。在这项研究中,探测并不是一种可靠的探测埋藏骨头的方法。一些从业人员继续提倡寻找或其他科学上有问题的搜索方法,甚至向调查人员或家属收取大量费用。因此,重要的是要充分理解和严格测试这些技术,并且调查人员寻求和采用适当和有效的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dowsing for Bone
Locating clandestine graves is often a significant challenge for law enforcement and other investigators. A number of search techniques can be employed including visual assessments, canines, geophysical techniques, and imaging, often depending on the location/terrain, case information, and available resources. Dowsing is believed by some to be a reliable method for locating underground items of interest including water, oil, ore, and even graves; others, however, consider the practice to be controversial or even pseudoscience. Here we assess the ability of dowsing rods (wielded by previously inexperienced dowsers) to locate buried bones using a controlled blind test. Assemblages of bones were buried in three of nine holes. A control group of participants was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones by visual inspection, and a test group was asked to identify which holes they believed to contain bones using dowsing rods. Results indicate that neither method had a significant relationship with the true location of the bones (Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient –0.19 for the control group and 0.00 for the test group), and that there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.36). In this study, dowsing was not found to be a reliable method of detecting buried bones. Some practitioners continue to advocate dowsing or other scientifically questionable search methods, even charging investigators or families substantial fees for these services. It is therefore important that such techniques are well-understood and rigorously tested, and that investigators seek and employ methods that are appropriate and valid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信