TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on November 28, 2015, 10:59:09 AM
-
In re-evaluating the conclusions in TIGHAR's 1999 paper Amelia Earhart's Bone and Shoes, Dr. Richard Jantz has asked us to get an accurate forensic measurement of Earhart's height.
The Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum has given permission for Jeff Glickman and me to do that on January 11, 2016. By comparing measurements we'll take of Earhart's transatlantic Vega 5B to historical photos of Earhart standing in front of that same aircraft, we should be able to get an accurate height.
Because museum personnel will need to partially disassemble the exhibit to accommodate us, we'll be taking those measurements early in the morning. Later in the morning, after the museum opens, Jeff and I will take a walk through the museum just for the fun of it. Anyone who cares to join us is more than welcome.
In addition to helping Dr. Jantz, knowing her height will help us answer many questions.
One of the oft-debated topics in evaluating evidence of Earhart's possible survival (for a while anyway) as a castaway on Gardner Island is the question of her shoe size. Earhart’s height, according to the information on her pilot’s license, was 5 feet 8 inches. U.S. Army data for predicting foot size by height (useful in knowing what size shoes to stock) indicates that the average foot size for an American woman 5 feet 8 inches tall is 257mm ± 9.03mm. In other words, if Earhart had “normal” size feet for her height they were between 248mm and 266mm in length. Her shoes, of course, would be somewhat longer.
A pair of dress shoes that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932 measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2. he shoes are quite narrow, AA or perhaps even AAA width. Amelia gave the shoes to her friend Helen Hutson Weber in November of 1932, according to Ms. Weber, “not for sentimental reasons but because they hurt her.”
TIGHAR found some shoe parts at the baby grave site on Aukeraime South in 1991. The implied length of that shoe was 277mm. How does that compare with Earhart's expected shoe size? See Shoe Fetish, Part 1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/29_ShoeFetish1/29_ShoeFetish1.html) and http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html
Based on the partial sole he found with the bones in 1940, Gallagher estimated the "woman's stout walking shoe or sandal" to have been a size 10. Perhaps one of our British Forum subscribers could tell us the length in mm of a current UK women's size 10, or better yet, find a 1930s vintage size women's shoe. See http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html
Dr. Hoodless (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology4.html) reported :
"By taking measurements of the length of the femur, tibia and the humerus I estimate that these bones belonged to a [male] skeleton of total height of 5 feet 5 1/2 inches approximately."
Would a man of that stature normally wear a size 10 shoe?
-
Was FN's height known?
If so then surely it would be easier and cheaper to work out AE's height from the many photographs taken of the pair together?
-
From the two photos, it looks like you will have to account for two different types of tires, not to mention their state of inflation in comparison to what tires are currently on the Vega at the Smithsonian. Also, the angle of the second photo looks to me like it was taken from an elevated position, which also will be hard to re-create.
Wouldn't some of the photos of AE in front of the Electra be as useful? Or how about the photo of her in front of the Yellow Peril? Do we know how tall Nilla Putnam was so we can compare? or Fred? Seems like there should be multiple ways to investigate this question.
Should be interesting. Wish I could join you.
Andrew
-
According to this Research Bulletin:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/09_Noonan/09_Noonan.html
Noonan was six feet and one-quarter inch.
LTM,
Karen Hoy #2610ER
-
Andrew's note about tire inflation is a valid consideration if AE's height was to be obtained by a comparing it to various points between the ground and the Vega for their heights. I am not a forensic photographer so I can't speak to what method Jeff G. will use, but I wonder if it might suffice to take a measurement of a known distance in the same visual plane that AE is standing in. For example, the vertical distance between the centers of the wheel lug nuts. (Is it the same nomenclature for aircraft and cars?)
There would be no need to travel to the museum if you can trust the curators of the museum to provide an accurate measurement from the actual aircraft. Transferring the photographic distance between the lugs onto her body from the ground to the top of her head (which won't be exact since she is not bald) and then multiplying that count by the museum measurement should provide a fairly accurate estimate of her height. Doing this -if practical- with several other photos would increase the likelihood of a fairly accurate measurement, but how accurate does accurate need to be?
Using the lug distance in the photo would take into account the perspective from the elevated position of the camera which Andrew also mentions. It would not however account for the contrapposto posture AE has assumed in the photo, but would that 1/4" to 1/2" drop in her head position be a factor? Nor would it take into account the height of her shoe heel/sole and any lifts she may or may not have worn.
cheers
d. alan
-
how accurate does accurate need to be?
What David said. If we're talking the matter of a half-inch, or less, it seems to me as a commonsense matter that there are far too many variables of an imponderable nature to make the effort worth it compared to what the ultimate knowledge gained may be. Regardless of who the expert may be. TIGHAR has a lot of priorities right now. Does this need to be one of them?
And no matter how close TIGHAR tries to get the measurement, its legions of detractors will shred the methodology and conclusions into oblivion, throwing the conclusions into at least reasonable doubt. Thus negating much of the perceived value.
Or so it seems to me.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Along with the height information on the pilot license,...5'8", other documents list this feature as well,...such as this passport issued in 1932,....see attachment;
-
Along with the height information on the pilot license,...5'8", other documents list this feature as well,...such as this passport issued in 1932,....see attachment;
5' 8" seems to be the stock answer. Note that the date of birth is wrong.
-
Ric, will this be downtown DC or out by Dulles?
-
From the two photos, it looks like you will have to account for two different types of tires, not to mention their state of inflation in comparison to what tires are currently on the Vega at the Smithsonian.
I'm not sure there are two different types of tires. In one photo the airplane has wheel pants. In the other it doesn't. The tires may be the same, but I don't think it matters anyway. Jeff will only use one of the photos. He'll need to measure the tire compression in the photo he decides to use. Once he has scaled the photo that should be easy. The airplane as exhibited in the museum is on jacks so there is no tire compression. I'm not a photogrammetrist but it seems to me that it should just be a matter of adjusting for the height of the jack stands minus the amount of tire compression.
Also, the angle of the second photo looks to me like it was taken from an elevated position, which also will be hard to re-create.
If Jeff uses that photo he'll have to take that into account. How hard it will be is beyond my pay grade.
Wouldn't some of the photos of AE in front of the Electra be as useful?
Except we don't have the Electra. The closest we could come would be the Finch/Kammerer replica in the Museum of Flight and it's "close but no cigar." We do have the Vega.
Or how about the photo of her in front of the Yellow Peril?
I don't know if there is an appropriate photo of her in front of the Yellow Peril. You have to have a photo where she's in the same plane as some part of the vehicle or object and visible from the bottom of her shoes to the top of her head whike standing on a hard surface. As I recall, the Yellow Peril is in a museum someplace but wherever it is it's harder to get to than NASM.
Do we know how tall Nilla Putnam was so we can compare?
No, and that photo wouldn't help anyway. AE and Nilla are not in the same plane as the airplane.
or Fred?
We know Fred's height but I haven't been able to find a photo of AE and Fred standing up straight exactly shoulder-to-shoulder and visible from feet to head standing on a hard surface.
Seems like there should be multiple ways to investigate this question.
Like most of this forensic imaging stuff, it's a lot trickier than it looks.
Jeff does this kind of thing for a living. He frequently testifies as an expert witness. He has to defend his work in court. People go to jail based on his findings. The work he does for TIGHAR is pro bono. He is paying his own way to DC.
Should be interesting. Wish I could join you.
Good questions. Thanks.
-
Ric, will this be downtown DC or out by Dulles?
The Vega is downtown in the main museum. Pioneers of Flight Gallery, second floor.
-
There would be no need to travel to the museum if you can trust the curators of the museum to provide an accurate measurement from the actual aircraft.
I have learned from experience not to trust NASM to do research for TIGHAR. I'm grateful that they've agreed to let us have access to the aircraft.
how accurate does accurate need to be?
We'll do the best we can. Jeff will come up with an answer and +/- margin of error.
-
And no matter how close TIGHAR tries to get the measurement, its legions of detractors will shred the methodology and conclusions into oblivion, throwing the conclusions into at least reasonable doubt. Thus negating much of the perceived value.
TIGHAR does not have legions of detractors. TIGHAR has legions of supporters. We have a handful of detractors whom we will never convince of anything.
-
how accurate does accurate need to be?
We'll do the best we can. Jeff will come up with an answer and +/- margin of error.
My question about accuracy is not so much directed at Jeff's determination, though it is obviously important, but toward the request of Dr. Jantz,
In re-evaluating the conclusions in TIGHAR's 1999 paper Amelia Earhart's Bone and Shoes, Dr. Richard Jantz has asked us to get an accurate forensic measurement of Earhart's height.
Cheers,
d alan
-
My question about accuracy is not so much directed at Jeff's determination, though it is obviously important, but toward the request of Dr. Jantz,
I don't know if we'll be able to get an accurate enough height to be of help to Dr. Jantz or not. All we can do is try.
-
We know Fred's height but I haven't been able to find a photo of AE and Fred standing up straight exactly shoulder-to-shoulder and visible from feet to head standing on a hard surface.
Here is one of the better ones I have found, though Earhart dips her right shoulder a bit;
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/313/rec/769
-
I know that one well. Great pic but it won't work. We need to see them from shoes to top of head.
-
Ric, are there other photos that show the heels of Amelia's shoes, so Jeff can factor that in to his measurements? From the color, the shoes she's wearing in the Vega photos don't appear to be one of the three pairs described in the research report (http://"http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html").
It's an interesting wrinkle that you have to allow for the height of her shoes, as you measure her height to evaluate whether that was Amelia's shoe that you found on Niku.
-
NASM opens at 10am. Is that the meeting time for the museum walk through?
Karen #2610ER
-
I know that one well. Great pic but it won't work. We need to see them from shoes to top of head.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/313/rec/769
Here is another that must have been taken during the same photo shoot, ...Fred is leaning a bit in this one, but both pairs of shoes are in view...seems she is wearing the two tone pair.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/308/rec/440
pair number three (3)
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html
-
UK shoe sizes is akin to 'how long is a piece of string'! Men's shoe sizes do not vary as much as women's. Two weeks ago I was looking for just one style of mans shoe yet had to try 6.5, 7, 7.5 and 8; all dependent on the retailer, or more precisely the manufacturer. Typing in 'UK shoe sizes' into Google will give an indication of the standard . . . take your pick!
And a cautionary tale with clothe sizes whose size numbering varies enormously, now coupled with the industry 'down-numbering' the scale as the populous has increased in obesity and women in particular, it was deemed, are uncomfortable buying a garment with an increased girth number due to their body increase. Its often said each retailer, aka manufacturer, adopts their own size code-number scale, all in the interests of maximizing sales!
Locating a 1930s woman's shoe would indeed be best and I've now missed a prefect opportunity yesterday when their was a large local old garment/shoes/handbags etc sale, the first I've heard of for some time. Guess it'll be quiet now through Xmas and most of Jan. I will look when the opportunity avails.
-
In terms of correlating shoe size to height, what about usage and personal habits in terms of a non-exact fit?
Myself, I often select sizes depending on the use of the shoe. As an example, hiking, of course, can require a greater shoe size than you normally would have. In some of my more demanding outdoor experiences the size can be significantly greater. Another example, lately I have been selecting shoes for work at a greater size than I normally would, for greater comfort. And this has now become my standard.
Might Amelia have done the same? Hours at the rudder pedals, allowances for foot swelling? Cold temperatures and thicker/more pairs of socks?
It's amazing how a sloppy shoe can grow on you.
-
NASM opens at 10am. Is that the meeting time for the museum walk through?
Let's make it 11am to give people a bit more time to get there without dealing with DC rush hour.
Let's meet under the Spirit of St. Louis.
-
How tall was Nilla Putman?
If that can be found, this picture might be useful.
-
Ric, are there other photos that show the heels of Amelia's shoes, so Jeff can factor that in to his measurements? From the color, the shoes she's wearing in the Vega photos don't appear to be one of the three pairs described in the research report (http://"http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html").
I agree. She's wearing different shoes than any of the three pair she seems to have had with her on the world flight. The heels seem to be quite low.
It's an interesting wrinkle that you have to allow for the height of her shoes, as you measure her height to evaluate whether that was Amelia's shoe that you found on Niku.
I don't think we're going to be able to be that precise and the height of a shoe heel is not going to make a meaningful difference in the predictable size of a normal person's feet. What we're looking for is any significant discrepancy between Earhart's state height of 5'8" and her actual height.
Just eyeballing the photo of AE and FN standing together and knowing that FN stood a tad over 6', the difference in their respective heights looks like less than 4" to me. By my very crude and inexpert ballpark estimation it looks more like about 2.5 inches. If true, that would mean that AE understated her height; not at all uncommon among tallish women. Men tend to overstate their height. I was six feet tall for years until I came to grips with the fact that I'm actually 5' 10.5".
It will be interesting to see what Jeff Glickman comes up with.
-
How tall was Nilla Putman?
If that can be found, this picture might be useful.
A. How would we find an accurate height for Nilla Putnam?
B. AE and Nilla are not in the same plane as the plane (so to speak). They are standing some distance from the Electra. We would have to guess at that distance. The beauty of the Vega photos is that AE is actually touching the aircraft so we know exactly where she is relative to the point of reference on the aircraft.
-
In terms of correlating shoe size to height, what about usage and personal habits in terms of a non-exact fit? ...
Might Amelia have done the same? Hours at the rudder pedals, allowances for foot swelling? Cold temperatures and thicker/more pairs of socks?
It gets chilly at 10,000 feet even in the tropics. We can make all kinds of speculations about actual shoe sizes but we need to start with a normal range of foot size for a person of a particular height and body type. Those data are available and Earhart certainly seems to have been normally proportioned.
-
Given the variables others have brought up, such as the tire inflation and thickness of her shoes, I question if the desired precision in estimating Earhart's height is outweighed by the measurement uncertainty. I will be surprised if Jeff Glickman is able to get better than a ±1-2 inch estimate, which is as good as we already have from documentary evidence.
At the very least, I suggest it would be worthwhile to evaluate the many photos of Earhart standing next to other aircraft or well-known individuals to help narrow down the uncertainty. Several examples include:
- Photos with Fred Noonan, whose height I've seen listed as 6' 1/4"
- Photos with Herbert Hoover, whose height is listed as 5'11" to 6'0"
- Photos with GP Putnam - I haven't yet located a height for him
- Photos with Eleanor Roosevelt, whose height is listed as 5'11" to 6'0"
- Photos with Franklin Roosevelt, whose height is listed as 6'2"
Multiple options exist on this page alone:
http://www.vintag.es/2015/03/30-photos-of-famous-aviator-amelia.html
If Jeff will be in the area on other business anyway and the Museum visit is a convenient opportunity, may as well go ahead and do it. If he's making a special trip, it sounds like a potentially ineffective use of time and money. Perhaps he could use his volunteerism time for greater long-term value to the Nikumaroro Hypothesis by providing reports on his analysis methodology in the 2-2-V-1 and Bevington Object investigations.
-
Several photos with Herbert Hoover and one with the Roosevelts.
-
I will be surprised if Jeff Glickman is able to get better than a ±1-2 inch estimate, which is as good as we already have from documentary evidence.
I'd be interested know how you know that the 5'8" height she listed on her pilot's license and passport is within 1 to 2 inches of her actual height. If I used that "documentary" height in drawing some conclusion you'd be all over me. If we're going to base any kind of analysis on her height we need a forensically-determined number with a calculated margin of error. Maybe the best we'll be able to come up with is 5'8" plus or minus two inches but that's still better than "She said her height was 5'8"."
At the very least, I suggest it would be worthwhile to evaluate the many photos of Earhart standing next to other aircraft or well-known individuals to help narrow down the uncertainty.
Sure. We can eyeball those photos and make qualitative assessments and there's nothing wrong with doing that, but Glickman's work will give us a quantitative answer.
If Jeff will be in the area on other business anyway and the Museum visit is a convenient opportunity, may as well go ahead and do it. If he's making a special trip, it sounds like a potentially ineffective use of time and money.
Jantz asked me if we could get a forensically-determined height for Earhart. I asked Jeff if there was a way to do that using photographs. He outlined the requirements. I suggested several photos (including the Bandoeng photo of AE and FN suggested by Jerry German). Jeff needed something better. I found the photos of AE with the Vega and it occurred to me that the same airplane still exists. I told Jeff my idea of comparing a historical photo of AE beside the Vega to measurements taken of that same airplane. He said that would be perfect. The next challenge was to get NASM, with whom we have something of an adversarial relationship, to allow us access to one of their most prized artifacts. I was ultimately successful in that regard. My original suggestion to Jeff was that he let me know when he would be in DC on business and we'd try schedule the work during his visit. Jeff decided he would rather make it a special trip and bring along his nine year-old daughter who has never been to DC. There will be no cost to TIGHAR other than my train ticket.
-
Last night (before I had joined TIGHAR, which I did this morning) I emailed a suggestion to TIGHAR concerning Amelia's height. I received an encouraging reply from Marty Moleski so I'll repeat the idea here. My suggestion involves the photo in which Amelia is standing immediately adjacent to the Vega's propeller---and the idea is to use the propeller as a measuring device---a "yardstick". This can be done by carefully measuring the propeller length at the Air& Space Museum. However, the propeller in the Museum may not be the exact one in the photo, so it would be necessary to find out if there could have been any changes to the propeller specs (i.e., length) from the Museum aircraft and the propeller in the AE photo. The propeller logo in the photo (and in a photo I have of the Vega at the Museum; see attached) indicate that it is from the Hamilton Standard Propeller Company. Even if the Museum propeller and the propeller in the AE photo are of identical length, it would be best to first test the technique independently. One way would be to, say, photograph Ric (who stated that he is 5' 10.5") and see, if by knowing the length of the prop measured at the Museum, one can accurately determine Ric's height from the photo of him using this technique. This initial test might also indicate ways to refine the technique to account for distortions before using this approach with the AE photo itself. The major advantage here of this approach is that factors such as tire inflation are by-passed and the prop itself becomes a "measuring stick"---like the rulers one sees in line-up photos!
Steve Burk
-
However, the propeller in the Museum may not be the exact one in the photo, so it would be necessary to find out if there could have been any changes to the propeller specs (i.e., length) from the Museum aircraft and the propeller in the AE photo.
Earhart originally donated her transatlantic Vega to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia where it hung from the ceiling for many years. The engine was low-time so she swapped it for a run-out engine before donating the airplane to the museum. Many years later the Smithsonian cut a deal with the Franklin Institute and acquired the airplane. The Smithsonian then "restored" the airplane to its current appearance. This involved, among other things, stripping the fabric covering off the molded plywood fuselage (and selling bits of it as souvenirs) and recovering and painting the airplane. What relationship the prop that is now on the airplane has to the prop in the photograph is anybody's guess. HamStandard props come in many lengths.
-
Thanks, Ric. I was afraid that might be a problem. I liked the idea of using the prop because she is standing so close to it. Would the diameter of the circular engine opening be anymore standard on the Vega than the prop lengths? If so, perhaps that measure could be used rather than prop length?
-
Would the diameter of the circular engine opening be anymore standard on the Vega than the prop lengths? If so, perhaps that measure could be used rather than prop length?
If it's the same cowling as in the photo the diameter hasn't changed - but how to get this measurement is not up to me. Jeff Glickman is the expert. My job is to get him what he needs.
-
Some of your earlier discussion, Ric, lead me to believe that tire inflation was going to enter the calculations, such as your statement: "Jeff will only use one of the photos. He'll need to measure the tire compression in the photo he decides to use. Once he has scaled the photo that should be easy. The airplane as exhibited in the museum is on jacks so there is no tire compression. I'm not a photogrammetrist but it seems to me that it should just be a matter of adjusting for the height of the jack stands minus the amount of tire compression." If tire compression were to be a factor, I felt it might be useful to suggest an alternative to avoid that approach. But I fully understand that the actual approach to be used is up to the expert, Jeff Glickman.
-
I'd be interested know how you know that the 5'8" height she listed on her pilot's license and passport is within 1 to 2 inches of her actual height. If I used that "documentary" height in drawing some conclusion you'd be all over me.
Well, I can’t speak for Jeff Scott, but I wouldn’t be all over you. I’ve seen no good reason to doubt that Amelia correctly reported her height in her pilot’s license — I certainly don’t think your statement that “people often misstate their height” is sufficient reason to think that Amelia’s reported height was wrong. Ric, how often is “often”? How far off on average is the discrepancy between a person’s true height and his/her reported height on official documents?
Maybe the best we'll be able to come up with is 5'8" plus or minus two inches but that's still better than "She said her height was 5’8"."
If Amelia’s reported height of 5’8” falls within the margin of error for your “forensically determined” height, then there is no reason to believe that her true height was anything other that what she reported it to be.
Since Mr. Glickman’s name has come up, when is he going to explain how he determined the presence of four rivet lines on the Miami Patch photo? Or perhaps this will this never be explained, and we’ll simply have to take it on faith that Mr. Glickman somehow sees those rivet lines? Mr. Glickman doesn’t even have to explain how he improved the original Miami Patch photo to bring out those rivet lines, we merely need to see the improved picture that brings those details out.
-
How tall was Nilla Putman?
If that can be found, this picture might be useful.
A. How would we find an accurate height for Nilla Putnam?
B. AE and Nilla are not in the same plane as the plane (so to speak). They are standing some distance from the Electra. We would have to guess at that distance. The beauty of the Vega photos is that AE is actually touching the aircraft so we know exactly where she is relative to the point of reference on the aircraft.
A. From the discussion in the 2-2-V-1 thread last year when the Miami Herald pictures and the Nilla/AE picture were introduced, I got the impression you had or knew someone who had a contact with David and Nilla Putman's descendants but I may be wrong. They may have records which would give her height. In particular I'm thinking a dressmaker's measurements. Won't know unless someone asks.
B. In the case of this picture I think the Electra is irrelevant. Both Nilla and AE are squarely facing the camera (parallel to the plane of the camera lens) and their feet are in line with each other. Nilla is a little bit on one foot but it shouldn't be enough to matter.
If a reasonably reliable and figure could be found for Nilla the difference in height would seem to be a simple calculation but I'll leave that to Jeff G.
-
Well, I can’t speak for Jeff Scott, but I wouldn’t be all over you.
That's good to know.
If Amelia’s reported height of 5’8” falls within the margin of error for your “forensically determined” height, then there is no reason to believe that her true height was anything other that what she reported it to be.
I agree.
Since Mr. Glickman’s name has come up, when is he going to explain how he determined the presence of four rivet lines on the Miami Patch photo?
That's explained in the latest TIGHAR Tracks.
-
I'll leave that to Jeff G.
So will I.
-
Looking for personalities with reported height, near Earhart's , I came upon this image;
http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/7472307/513full-babe-didrikson-zaharias.jpg
Sources list Babe as being 5'6 1/2" - 5'7"
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/di/babe-didrikson-1.html
https://books.google.com/books?
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/di/babe-didrikson-1.html
Earhart is standing on what appears to be a wee bit higher ground by the tree, ....both seem to be wearing similar style shoes/heels...
-
Amy Johnson is reported as being 5'4"
http://www.britishheritage.com/amy-johnson-pioneer-aviator/
In this photo, AE is obviously taller, even if both are wearing heels:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/dd/66/f4/dd66f49aa35cbf82d5895ec184c17d3b.jpg
Johnson and her husband Jim Mollison were also in the photo of AE and the Roosevelts. They were the ones wearing bandages.
FWIW, Mollison was also shorter than AE.
LTM (who says stand up straight),
Karen Hoy 2610 ER
-
In any of the photos with Amelia and another known-height person why not use Photoshop and marquee a slice through one of the two figures, copy & paste (the paste goes into a new layer), then move the pasted slice over the opposing figure. This overcomes the figures standing on uneven ground. It can also be used to compare matching points, like eye-lines/ nose-bridge, to ankle bones etc.
-
Using my Photoshop technique on the posted image on http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/7472307/513full-babe-didrikson-zaharias.jpg, which is rather low resolution, and taking their nose-bridges to both right ankle bones on the two figures. Then in Photoshop I measured the two sliced-image heights, obtained the percentage difference, and then multiplied the lesser stated-height of 5ft 6.5in of Didrikson, giving Amelia at an apparent 5ft 7.5in. However Amelia's head is tilted forward, arguably similarly to Didrikson, but Amelia has a more pronounced head-lean to her left thus slightly reducing her height in the image. So this 5' 7.5" height figure needs to be slightly increased. Overall this Photoshop technique alleviates error with unknown shoes & various sole thicknesses, as well as crown hair thickness due to vastly differing female hair styles. A higher resolution image is preferable.
Hope this helps.
-
It will be interesting to see how all of the amateur analyses compare with whatever Jeff Glickman comes up with. GUARANTEED: If there is a significant discrepancy the expert will be declared wrong.
-
I like the proposed independent look at Amelia's height. Even today with the strict rules for drivers licence they still take my word for height and weight. I suppose if I offered something off by several inches or 50 pounds they would question it, maybe not.
On the amateur side there are some obvious bounds in multiple photos.
She was a little taller than Paul Mantz.
The same size as Mannering +/- hair style
With Amelia wearing 2 inch heels, a little shorter than President Hoover
A full forehead shorter than Noonan.
Findings outside the obvious will, as you have pointed out, result in many suggesting Tighar must be wrong. Tighar has in the past taken, in my opinion, a very brave stance in it's interpretation of the data of the post loss signals and 2-2-V-1. I await the independent findings of Amelia's height and it's defense with interest.
Neff
-
Good information about your effort. I truly wish you guys luck - this seems like a very stiff challenge to gauge Earhart's height with precision within an inch or so.
Given the prop scaling mentioned, as you mentioned earlier, Ric, the prop now installed on Earhart's Vega may not even be the same length as that installed in historic photos of yesteryear, so the possible variables from that and other things seem daunting: she may have swapped props (low time kept / high time installed) as well as engines. Even a given prop type often has blade lengths that can be shortened permissibly for repair, etc. That said, the Vega clearly has lots of 'landmark' features that may be helpful. One hopes the original cowling is present, of course.
A picture of the NASM Earhart Vega exhibit shows a ground adjustable prop now on the bird - likely the original type, but what appears to be a variable pitch prop (hydro-controlled) low in the foreground. I doubt that hydro-controlled prop (if what it is) was ever on that Vega - may possibly be an example of what was on the Electra or something, don't know.
It may be of some side interest (not in terms of measurement so much) that the Vega carried an earlier version of the same basic direct drive Pratt & Whitney 1344 cu. in. engine as the Electra - a Wasp (C1 at 420 HP or an SC1 at 450 HP; Electra of course carried the S3H1 at 550 HP normal, 600 HP for 1 minute at take-off).
Since gear scaling is mentioned, I wonder about possible variables like the gear height - aircraft weight / strut extension, tire height (inflation / original size / type: semi-airwheels, or airwheels, etc?) and whether the condition of those things is clear in the historic photos and effectively comparable to how the plane sits today. I also note that the tail is raised somewhat in the exhibit, so the nose is a bit lower than would be the case if sitting in normal ground attitude. Fussy details, but when you're trying to benchmark the aviatrix against an airframe of that size it probably will be tough to work through those details.
It's cool that you got direct access. The Vega - a beautiful craft and sleek for its day, is my all time favorite historic airplane and they're quite rare. It was arguably the first purpose-built 'business airplane'. I was permitted 'inside' the rope with Kermit Weeks' example some years ago at Fantasy of Flight for a close look, quite a treat.
Not meaning to go on so but this is what happens on my way to 'looking something up' in aviation museums... :P
-
it's never a "simple, bolt-on" procedure, is it Ric ?
-
Along with the height information on the pilot license,...5'8", other documents list this feature as well,...such as this passport issued in 1932,....see attachment;
5' 8" seems to be the stock answer. Note that the date of birth is wrong.
Important information,....Here is another document giving Amelia's year of birth as 1898...so that makes two documents that state this year,...anyone have a copy of Amelia's birth certificate ?
The Census report gives 1897 as her birth year...strange how seemingly important documents would contain errors like the two documents I mentioned, but I too, have discovered many recording errors in the census reports as well, when searching my family tree, hard to trust the written record sometimes.
-
In the interest of heading off future outraged demands and accusations that we're hiding information, I should share a recent exchange we've had with NASM about our upcoming visit.
A fundamental part of doing any kind of research is showing how you got your answer. That is what people do when they write papers in the physical and social sciences, or when they write books analyzing historical subjects, for example. So you need not consider providing information about what Jeff Glickman’s methods for determining Amelia’s height as something to do merely to “head off outraged demands and accusations”, it is an obligation that everybody who does research is under. In the email message you’ve quoted, Jeff Glickman gives a nice thumbnail sketch of how he proposes to estimate Amelia’s height and presumably once he has done so he’ll be able to ‘show his work’ like any other researcher. I look forward to reading about that.
So when are we going to see how Jeff Glickman determined that the presence of rivet lines on the Miami Patch photo? I asked about that yesterday (see reply #35 above), and you directed me to the latest issue of Tighar Tracks. I’ve a copy of the 22v1 article in that issue of Tighar Tracks, and I see only a single sentence on page 18 stating that Jeff Glickman has been able to detect rivet lines, I see no explanation of how he did so. When will we see that explanation? Did Mr. Glickman somehow enhance the Miami Patch photo to make those rivet lines more apparent? If so, can we see the enhanced photo? If not, then what did his analysis consist of? It’s good that you had an expert in forensic photo analysis examine the Miami Patch photo, but if you merely state that your expert says there are rivet lines on the Miami Patch but can’t show us how your expert reached that conclusion, you’re simply making an argument from authority.
-
Here in this newspaper is an article, that gives a figure to the nearest estimation of her height,....from any source I have come across thus far. If credible, it places Earhart just short of 5'8" , as I take the meaning of the description to be on the lower side of the figure.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1787&dat=19370715&id=T3YcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VWQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2990,1079621&hl=en
-
I asked about that yesterday (see reply #35 above), and you directed me to the latest issue of Tighar Tracks. I’ve a copy of the 22v1 article in that issue of Tighar Tracks,
I'd be interested to know where you got a copy of the 2015 TIGHAR Tracks. It has been sent only to TIGHAR members.
and I see only a single sentence on page 18 stating that Jeff Glickman has been able to detect rivet lines, I see no explanation of how he did so. When will we see that explanation?
When I get around to it.
-
Here in this newspaper is an article, that gives a figure to the nearest estimation of her height,....from any source I have come across thus far. If credible, it places Earhart just short of 5'8" , as I take the meaning of the description to be on the lower side of the figure.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1787&dat=19370715&id=T3YcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VWQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2990,1079621&hl=en
Nice find Jerry. Like the height on the pilots license and passport, the information probably came from Amelia herself.
-
On the front page of the same newspaper; https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1787&dat=19370715&id=T3YcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VWQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2990,1079621&hl=en
Interesting note about the searchers and their struggle against the elements.
-
Interesting note about the searchers and their struggle against the elements.
"The heat was so intense the aviator smeared their faces with grease."
We prefer sunblock.
-
If you are wanting to get Amelia's height, you might also measure her flight suit on display at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center. I was there on Nov 24 just before this Forum thread started. Lots of things to see so I only glanced at it in passing. As I recall, it is by itself, upright in a clear display case, and appeared to be made of a stiff black material like leather, and consisted of a jacket and slacks. When I saw it I assumed it was custom tailored for her. If you go to the Air and Space website and search 'Amelia' under 'Collections On Display' it is listed as "Suit, Flying, Civilian, Amelia Earhart", but there is no link to an actual picture. She is probably wearing it in one of the many photographs of her with a plane in the background.
If I knew this thread would start a few days later, I would have taken and posted a picture!
-
It might be worth considering what would happen if the Smithsonian measurements and subsequent analysis were to conclude that AE's height was, say, 5ft 9 in + or- 1 inch. On the one hand this range could be used to argue that possibly she was as tall as 5 ft 10 in. and had misstated her height on records. However, another argument could reasonably be made that 5 ft 8 in is within the error bounds of the measurements and agrees with the height AE claimed on her records. This latter argument seems more persuasive to me because it doesn't require AE to have falsified her records. Thus, if 5 ft. 8 in. falls within the error bounds of her height as inferred from the Smithsonian analysis, it would seem difficult to argue for a height other than her stated 5 ft. 8 in. value.
-
Thus, if 5 ft. 8 in. falls within the error bounds of her height as inferred from the Smithsonian analysis, it would seem difficult to argue for a height other than her stated 5 ft. 8 in. value.
I agree.
-
The attached 1926 Massachusetts RMV license indicates Earhart's height to be 5 ft. 7 in. This differs from the height of 5 feet 8 inches stated on her pilot's license and passport but is closer to Dr. Hoodless' estimate of the Nikumaroro castaway's height of "5 feet 5 1/2 inches." Given that the official documents, including this one, are not unanimous and cannot at all be considered decisive in any case, I should think Jeff Glickman's determination would be valuable to know.
The RMV document repeats the error of 1898 as the year of birth. I remember my grandmother gave her year of birth as 1904 when in fact it was 1903. When I asked her why she told me it was tradition for women of her generation to advance the birth date by a year to cheat Father Time, if only in a small way. Her epitaph marker is carved 1904, at her request.
Joe Cerniglia
-
Nice find Joe. So far we have AE stating her height as 5' 8", almost 5'8", and 5' 7". In 1926 AE was 29 years old. Seems like she would have her full height by then.
-
Incidentally, it was wrong of me to post excerpts of the emails from NASM. I've apologized to NASM and I hereby apologize to the Forum. I should know better than to dance to the tune of our critics. It won't happen again.
I have removed the post.
-
For the Vega measuring exercise I’d suggest a Self-levelling Rotary Laser as this can afford above floor level measurements without physical contact with the exhibit and its ensuing concerns. The red-beam versions are most suited for daylight conditions and the green-beam for interior lighting. Tripod mount the laser and progressively adjust its height to position the laser beam on the desired exhibit spot, then simply steel tape measure the height of the beam away from the exhibit, optionally using the electronic beam-detector which can resolve to around 1mm. Thus there should not be any need to use a surveying staff. To restrict the rotary beam from unwanted areas of the room merely add a baffle, like a hand/pocket tissue, around the rotating head but not touching it.
To measure the off-floor exhibit wheel heights hold a spirit level under the bottom of each tire and measure the height of the top of the spirit level at a point clear of the exhibit. Or if the wheels are close to, but clear of, the floor use external engineering calipers, which come in various sizes.
If the exhibit is non-level it might be prudent to tape measure the height of each wing tip in case someone subsequently attempts a computer CAD re-orientating exercise; a daunting challenge!
-
I don't believe we have any way of knowing whether AE's stated height of 5ft 8in represents a "shoes on" or a "shoes off" value. If it is a "shoes off" measure, then with "shoes on" such as in her photo alongside the Vega, her height might be expected to be more like 5ft 9in or so. This uncertainty could then alter what height is considered to be within the error bounds (discussed in an earlier post) and what isn't.
-
I don't believe we have any way of knowing whether AE's stated height of 5ft 8in represents a "shoes on" or a "shoes off" value.
That's an interesting point. How do you know how tall you are? It's hard to measure your own height. Usually somebody else measures your height (often a nurse during a physical) and tells you. Do most people kick off their shoes before stepping up to be weighed and measured? I know I do.
-
Wonder the distance between top of fender and bottom of wing, Earhart doesn't seem to be able to fit under and has to crouch a bit, ...maybe just a bracing action on her part though. If it is found that the tires have been changed would a photo like this help?
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/31/article-2152931-1363EA89000005DC-601_634x489.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173446/Amelia-Earhart-Beauty-kit-desert-island-Pacific.html&h=489&w=634&tbnid=o3dmc7m-x3q6wM:&docid=7Q6Wx4t2FaDkHM&ei=zYtgVq6KEIrXmwH_26GYDQ&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjupNPpqsDJAhWK6yYKHf9tCNM4yAEQMwgTKBAwEA
-
Why not use AE herself to extrapolate her measurements - her palm print is at the Library of Congress.
http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2013/07/hands-to-the-skies/
-
There is a formula that says measure your hand from the base to the tip of the middle finger. Then multiply that number by .10 for women or .11 for men. This should predict your height.
https://prettyhands.wordpress.com/big-hands-for-your-height-a-way-to-find-out/
I tried it. The formula says I should be 2 inches shorter than I actually am.
-
Interesting, but that's not what I had in mind when I suggested it. I was thinking more along the lines it providing a known measurement (that appears in almost every pic of AE. Imagine that!) that could be used for a scale reference.
-
The formula says I should be 2 inches shorter than I actually am.
Works out about right for me.
-
Why not use AE herself to extrapolate her measurements - her palm print is at the Library of Congress.
If the palm print is life-size she either had disproportionately big hands or she was about 5'10" tall.
-
If I understand the original purpose of this effort correctly it is not to find AE's height per se, but rather to use her height to estimate shoe size. If that is right, then might it be possible to by-pass finding her height altogether if a reasonably reliable correlation between hand size and foot size can be found? In a quick Google search this proved to be tougher than I would have guessed and I'll let others discover for themselves just why that is. I did find the following study, but it is from India and I don't know if the results would hold up for those of European descent:
http://medind.nic.in/jae/t05/i2/jaet05i2p55.pdf
-
I think Ric is trying to determine AE's height because Dr Jantz needs it to determine if the 13 bones found on Niku are consistent with AE or a short, stocky male.
-
I think Ric is trying to determine AE's height because Dr Jantz needs it to determine if the 13 bones found on Niku are consistent with AE or a short, stocky male.
That's right Karen. Dr. Jantz is looking at the bone measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless and asking if the bones are more consistent with Earhart or a short, stocky male (as Hoodless judged them to be).
-
Although, in the very first post of this thread, after discussing Dr. Jantz' needs, Ric goes on to say this:
"In addition to helping Dr. Jantz, knowing her height will help us answer many questions" and then he goes into a discussion of trying to estimate AE's shoe size. This is the aspect where my suggestion above may come into play.
-
I agree. Knowing her height would be one factor in estimating her shoe size but it seems like knowing the dimensions of her hands would tell us something about her proportions. For example, a person with relatively large hands would be unlikely to have relatively small feet.
-
In light of all the attention being given to Amelia's height, it was interesting to note the picture on page 56 of Tighar Tracks shows what appears to be a good comparison of heights side-by-side of Amelia and three members of the Northwest Airways survey flight crew beside the Ford Trimotor. Her eyes are at the approximate nose level of the two on her right, and at eye level of the one on her left. She appears to be in high or medium high heel shoes and standing nearly against the Trimotor, for what it's worth.
-
Ric and Jeff ,
I have a few concerns regarding some of the variables already mentioned ( tire compression for one),but what other factors may influence the outcome of the test? In regard to the Smithsonian version of the vega, it was mentioned that the exterior was removed and recovered and repainted,...were the markings re positioned exactly in the original positions? Concerning the two different Vegas owned by Earhart , did they set at differing resting heights? I believe it was stated that Earhart's vega was nearly worn out when she sold it,.....would the resting height of the worn Vega differ from the height of the restored Smithsonian version ,due to strut fatigue, along with fuel/ cargo loading or lack thereof? Most important, how will identical fuselage angle be replicated?, ...In the photo of the fender-pan version Vega, the tail drag rests on a wheeled platform,...the Smithsonian version tail drag,is also supported,.... are these platforms equal in height so as to align the fuselage to the same angle? The fender-less version vega photo,( drag stick not in view)....is that drag stick ,worn, new, bent????Is it resting on a transport dollie ? ,..I believe mathematically a minor difference back there translates to an increase/decrease in nose height up front. These things have been on my mind for sometime, I look forward to your response,in case others may be wondering these same things.
-
If using a measurement from a plane for scale, I should think that it would be advisable to get that measurement from something that isn't likely or possible to have been changed. I don't necessarily think that a prop would fall into that category. Unless there us strong evidence that it is indeed original and the same as seen in the photos to which you are applying that scale. The front opening of the cowl perhaps? Cockpit window frame? I understand that the preference would be for something relatively big, like a prop, but if it's uncertain whether or not it's original to the historical context... Something to think about anyway.
-
In regard to the Smithsonian version of the vega, it was mentioned that the exterior was removed and recovered and repainted,...were the markings re positioned exactly in the original positions?
Speaking for my inexpert self: It doesn't matter. I'm sure Jeff wouldn't use the painted markings as a reference. The cowling and the position of the engine can't change.
Concerning the two different Vegas owned by Earhart , did they set at differing resting heights?
Earhart owned five different Vegas at one time or another. We're only talking about one of them - Vega 5B NR7952. We're comparing photographs of AE in front of that airplane with measurements taken of the same airplane today.
I believe it was stated that Earhart's vega was nearly worn out when she sold it,.....would the resting height of the worn Vega differ from the height of the restored Smithsonian version ,due to strut fatigue, along with fuel/ cargo loading or lack thereof?
No, the Vega was not "worn out." When she donated the airplane to the Franklin Institute she swapped out the engine (which was relatively new) for an older engine of the same type. Airplane engines have a specified Time Between Overhaul (TBO). Once an engine reaches that number of hours of operation it must be overhauled. Overhauling an engine is expensive. Earhart did not want to give away an engine that still had lots of time left.
Most important, how will identical fuselage angle be replicated?
Not my problem. Not your problem. Glckman's problem.
These things have been on my mind for sometime, I look forward to your response,in case others may be wondering these same things.
In my inexpert opinion, the biggest challenge will be establishing propeller blade length in the photo versus the prop now on the airplane. The hubs are clearly different. The blade lengths are certainly similar but not necessarily identical.
Not my problem. Not your problem. Glckman's problem.
-
I agree. Knowing her height would be one factor in estimating her shoe size but it seems like knowing the dimensions of her hands would tell us something about her proportions. For example, a person with relatively large hands would be unlikely to have relatively small feet.
With regard to the correlation between hand and foot size, here is an article from a medical journal on the topic:
http://medind.nic.in/jae/t05/i2/jaet05i2p55.pdf
The article concludes " The results, therefore, indicate that if the hand length is known, foot length can be predicted and if the foot length is known, hand length can be predicted and vice versa."
-
With regard to the correlation between hand and foot size, here is an article from a medical journal on the topic:
Interesting. Based on the article, Earhart foot length should be between 24 and 25cm.
As I wrote in the opening post in this thread, if Earhart had “normal” size feet for her height they were between 248mm and 266mm in length. Her shoes, of course, would be somewhat longer.
A pair of dress shoes that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932 measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2.
Based on the information we have at this time it would seem reasonable to conclude that Earhart's feet probably measured around 25cm in length. Her shoe size would depend upon how much room she needed for socks or comfort. Dress shoes would be smaller. Casual or cold weather shoes larger.
-
The link that Ian posted this morning is the same one that I posted yesterday morning.
-
The link that Ian posted this morning is the same one that I posted yesterday morning.
Yes, and your concerns about the possibility of ethnic differences are probably valid.
-
Ric,
Will you, or some TIGHAR member, now be adding a side trip to the Library of Congress to measure AE's original palm print to your planned Smithsonian visit? (Thereby avoiding having to work from a photo and the difficulties that entails.)
-
Is the prop in the glass case , the one that flew the Atlantic?
-
I wonder if the Hamilton logo sticker is of a uniform size?
My dad worked for Hamilton Standard. I remember going to a couple of "open houses" when I was a kid. I always found it fascinating the condition of the props that came in for repair.
-
Is the prop in the glass case , the one that flew the Atlantic?
Dunno, but it sure looks like the prop in the photo. Whether it was on the plane during the Atlantic flight doesn't matter.
-
Ric,
Will you, or some TIGHAR member, now be adding a side trip to the Library of Congress to measure AE's original palm print to your planned Smithsonian visit? (Thereby avoiding having to work from a photo and the difficulties that entails.)
Possibly. It depends on how important a precise palm-print measurement would be to Dr. Jantz.
-
This photo of AE sitting on the wheel fairing of the Vega may assist Jeff Glickman and Dr. Jantz in calculating the length of AE's lower legs, to see if there is a match-up with the 37.2cm long tibia measured by Dr. Hoodless in 1941. The photo, from the Getty Archives, is titled; "Amelia Earhart being interviewed by the press at Newark Airport after failing to break Capt. Frank Hawks' cross country flight record." July 13, 1932, Credit: New York Daily News Archive.
There are also two photos of Amelia standing on foot pegs on the side of her Vega. I think if the exact distance between the foot pegs was known both lower leg measurements and seated vs. standing height could be determined.
Neff
-
This photo of AE sitting on the wheel fairing of the Vega may assist Jeff Glickman and Dr. Jantz in calculating the length of AE's lower legs, to see if there is a match-up with the 37.2cm long tibia measured by Dr. Hoodless in 1941.
Interesting idea. Should be easy enough to measure the wheel pants.
Totally aside from the measurement issue, it's interesting to note how AE's wardrobe evolved during her career. In 1932 she wore jodhpurs and jodhpur boots for flying. Many pilots wore riding apparel for flying, often boots and breeches. Army regulations specified that pilots should not wear spurs while flying.
When Earhart moved to California in 1935 she started wearing western (as in, cowboy) style clothes.
-
There are also two photos of Amelia standing on foot pegs on the side of her Vega. I think if the exact distance between the foot pegs was known both lower leg measurements and seated vs. standing height could be determined.
Neff
Is this one of the photos you are thinking of Neff?
-
Jerry, Yes Thanks.
This Link: http://www.stickandtissue.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Lockheed_Vega_Wylam_2of4.jpg
And the 2 photos below, which are better resolution of the one above may be of help.
For info on the photos
https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:6682zb80j
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/amelia-earhart-being-interviewed-by-the-press-at-newark-news-photo/97226483
Neff
-
Just for fun, I measured my wife's tibia. She is a nurse and is slim built like AE. Her tibia is just over 14 inches which is 36 cm. She is five foot five inches tall, so the bone that measured 37.2 cm would indicate someone over five-five by just a small amount. 1.2 cm equals one half inch.
-
That's very interesting, James. Seriously, we need someone to go around to all their neighbors, and measure the wifes' tibia, compared to the height, record their occupation and other information to present in a tabular form. I'm not kidding! OK, maybe a little!
-
That's very interesting, James. Seriously, we need someone to go around to all their neighbors, and measure the wifes' tibia, compared to the height, record their occupation and other information to present in a tabular form. I'm not kidding! OK, maybe a little!
It will come as no surprise, I'm sure, that the compiling of a database on worldwide bones measurements has already been done. The software is known as Fordisc (http://fac.utk.edu/fordisc.html). Dr. Richard Jantz was co-author. Dr. Karen Ramey Burns and Dr. Jantz used Fordisc in their analysis of measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless in 1941. Dr. Burns cited Fordisc in her work (https://books.google.com/books?id=9DODCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT652&lpg=PT652&dq=jantz+burns+fordisc&source=bl&ots=WVGVK6ruOg&sig=U_OBpYBkAJEOdLWOCZG_0z5s3OQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjt5ywwc7JAhXF7CYKHTIkB8kQ6AEIJDAD#v=onepage&q=jantz%20burns%20fordisc&f=false) in forensic anthropology. My interaction with Dr. Burns was limited to emails on EPAC but we could all see what a pro she was, and a great person.
Joe Cerniglia
-
Here is a nice photo for seated height and Tibia scaling. The wall and building may be seen in the background here http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/ref/collection/epurdue/id/350 and the wall railing a building are still a Perdue.
Neff
-
As with the Vega, with possibilities of it being used as an existing guide to help determine Earhart's height,.. we seem to have this building and hand rail at Purdue,to help us with the quest to ascertain that Earhart feature. Neff posted a modern day view of the building at Purdue,.. the following two attachments show Earhart standing up against a brick wall atop that same building, in times past, and one view of the area in which she was standing. One may be able to deduce a fairly accurate height from this photo,( allow for the wind uplifting her hair)..is someone close by and has access to this area?
Would an estimate of the upper arm length( Humerus) be feasible with a photo, such as this ?
Photo Purdue;
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/epurdue/id/358/rec/4
-
The Tibia , seems a key element in bones research;
The photo of AE sitting on the Vega wheel fairing appears to show her lower leg/tibia length was longer than the 37.2cm/14.65" length measured by Dr. Hoodless, if the Vega she owned have the same specs as per the attachment. IMO....more research on Earhart's vega may be telling.
The studies linked below discuss the relationship of tibia length to stature.
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jdms/papers/Vol13-issue5/Version-1/O013516570.pdf
Stature Estimation Using Per-Cutaneous Tibial Length in People of Gwalior Region
Note as well, the tibia is vital in identifying those whose skeletal remains are incomplete, as was the one found on Nikumaroro.
Abstract:
Stature estimation is an important part of the identification process of human skeletal remains or body parts to establish individuality of an unidentified dead, body or any mutilated part of such body by the Medico-legal expert...
Correlation of Percutaneous Tibal Length with Body Height and Estimation of Stature in Living Central India Population
http://www.ijmhr.org/ijar.3.2/IJAR.2015.187.pdf
Relationship Between the Stature and the Length of Long Bones Measured from X-rays; A Preliminary Report.
http://www.cspatologie.cz/docs/646-s-fulltext.pdf
Estimation of Stature from Percutaneous Tibial Length
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiti7jjiNfJAhUF2R4KHQ7PDb8QFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biomedscidirect.com%2Fdownload%2FIJBMRF20121010%2F13%2Festimation_of_stature_from_percutaneous_tibial_length&usg=AFQjCNH9BxarByzdRlw1XB8YFvMNIBoMUQ
A correlational study between stature and percutaneous tibial length in adult males and females of Rajasthan
http://ijbamr.com/pdf/PDF%20DECEMBER%2013%20%2021-26.pdf.pdf
-
Is anyone planning on going to the NASM on January 11 for the museum walk through?
Karen #2610ER
-
We know Fred's height but I haven't been able to find a photo of AE and Fred standing up straight exactly shoulder-to-shoulder and visible from feet to head standing on a hard surface.
Here is another head to toe , side by side capture;
-
Just back from Washington and NASM after a very successful day with Jeff Glickman collecting data for his forensic analysis of Earhart's height. We had to do our work before the museum opened. We were in at 8:00 and out by 9:30. Aeronautics Curator Dorothy Cochrane was a gracious and helpful hostess throughout, allowing us the access we needed while insuring that no harm came to the Vega (at no time did we touch the aircraft). Jeff used a new, state-of-the-art, 50 megapixel Leica to take the photos he needs for comparison to the historical photos. My job was to hold the graduated stick for scale - a task well-suited to my level of expertise.
A significant side-benefit to our visit, from my perspective, was the opportunity to spend some time with Dorothy and chat about our mutual interest in Amelia Earhart. We did not discuss the disappearance except to agree that Amelia should have paid more attention to the technical aspects of the flight. Dorothy offered to help track down the Carl B. Allen manuscript I mentioned in the Radios for the Second Attempt (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1811.msg39437.html#msg39437) thread.
Later we met up with TIGHAR researcher Karen Hoy for a walk through the museum.
When Jeff has finished his report he'll run it by NASM and we'll discuss permission to publish some of the photos he took to illustrate his methodology.
-
I did some searching to find software that would allow photos to be manipulated in 3D. I just wanted to share with the forum. Though it's not intended for analysis, Blender allows you to quickly create reasonably accurate 3D models and then create virtual images (and movies) from specific camera angles. It's free to download and there are tutorials for creating virtual aircraft. Anyone can create a virtual Amelia (whose parts can be measured), Vegas, and Electras to recreate a lot of these photos. For what it's worth...
https://www.blender.org/ (https://www.blender.org/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu9J0D6ebVw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu9J0D6ebVw)
-
Jeff Glickman has finished his forensic analysis of Earhart's height. Because his analysis is based upon photos we took of the Earhart Vega in Washington on January 11, 2016, NASM asked to see Jeff's report before we publish it. Jeff sent his report to NASM today. As soon as we have NASM's okay, we'll put the report up on the TIGHAR website.
In the meantime, I can tell you that Jeff calculated Amelia's height to be 5' 7" with a margin of error + - 3/8ths of an inch. That margin of error assumes errors in a combination of several possible variables but Jeff feels that the actual likely margin of error is more like 1/8 inch.
So Amelia was a bit shorter than the 5'8" listed on her pilot's license and her actual height was in line with the 5'6' to 5'7" estimate Jantz and Burns gave for the height of the castaway in Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf)?.
-
Kudos to Jeff, et al, for the hard work! I look forward to reading this report!
-
I'm looking forward to reading Jeff's report with great interest. As far as NASM reviewing it, is that just to check on picture usage or is more involved?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
NASM merely wanted to review the disclaimer Jeff included with his report. I should be able to post the report here later today.
-
Attached is Jeff Glickman's final report on Earhart's height.
-
It looks like a good start. Next steps?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
It looks like a good start. Next steps?
As I said at the beginning of this topic, "In re-evaluating the conclusions in TIGHAR's 1999 paper Amelia Earhart's Bone and Shoes, Dr. Richard Jantz has asked us to get an accurate forensic measurement of Earhart's height."
I've sent Jeff's report to Dr. Jantz.
-
Since TIGHAR has so much riding on whatever Dr. Jantz comes up with in his reanalysis, has any consideration been given to sending Jeff's excellent report out for third party review? Another expert in the field agreeing with Jeff's methods, analysis and conclusions would materially strengthen TIGHAR's case that this is Amelia's skeleton.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Since TIGHAR has so much riding on whatever Dr. Jantz comes up with in his reanalysis, has any consideration been given to sending Jeff's excellent report out for third party review?
You have already judged his report to be excellent but if you want a third party opinion, be my guest. His report is public information. The last time we had a third party review his work the analysts at the State Department agreed with him.
Another expert in the field agreeing with Jeff's methods, analysis and conclusions would materially strengthen TIGHAR's case that this is Amelia's skeleton.
I disagree, but if you feel that way, go for it.
-
A TIGHAR member who is a photographer emailed us to say that he was "distressed by this post by Jeff Glickman." He felt that, "There are so many things wrong here that makes quibbling over one-inch to be rather laughable." He went on to raise several questions. "The photograph of Amelia Earhart was apparently taken with a twin-lens reflex camera held at waist height. What was the height of the photographer? Was the camera at his belt buckle or belly-button height? How far from Amelia was he? ... The Canon 5DSR is a "full-frame" digital camera, so to get the same perspective as an 80mm 120 camera, the zoom lens should have been set to 50mm, or slightly less. Was it?" He was also concerned that the Vega in the Smithsonian is on a jack-stand. "What compensation was used to calculate the offset from the airplane's angle shown in the original with the angle in the museum photo?"
"In short, there are too many variables not accounted for between the two photos to place any reliance on the difference of one-inch in height of Amelia Earhart."
In conclusion he wrote, "I honestly look forward to a refutation of my few amateur details, but I honestly question this report's conclusion as to her height. That darned trigonometry keeps getting in the way."
His email was an honest, civil, and serious critique by a TIGHAR member with expertise in photography. We forwarded it to Jeff Glickman with a request that he respond. Jeff agreed and his reply is shown below. I asked Jeff for permission to post his reply here on the Forum (with the name of the addressee redacted) in the hope that it will remind everyone that TIGHAR is fortunate to have the pro bono help of experts of Jeff's caliber.
Dear R. ,
Thank you for your concern about the methodology that I summarized in my report regarding the Forensic Determination of Amelia Earhart’s height. I am a fellow photographer of 50 years. You are of course correct in stating that this is mostly about trigonometry. However, the handling and processing of this trigonometry is complex. Because of this, there is a subfield in photography that is dedicated to this subject which is called “Photogrammetry”.
I would first like to share with you some of my background. As a photographer, I have used nearly every class and type of camera. I have developed my own film, both black and white and color, and printed my own photographs. I have built many optical systems, including camera systems from scratch, and I hold patents in optical systems. Over more than 30 years I have developed a specialization in forensic photogrammetry and photointerpretation, as I have a deep understanding of optical systems, including cameras, and how they form and record images. In this capacity I have provided forensic photogrammetry services to the commercial sector, scientific organizations, and local and federal law enforcement, including the US Attorney’s Office, the US Department of Justice, the US Department of Homeland Security, and others. From a credentials perspective I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Past President of the Seattle Chapter of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, President of the Puget Sound Region of the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, a Board Certified Forensic Examiner, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, and a Past Member of the State of Washington Forensic Investigations Council.
Photogrammetry has been around more than 100 years, and there are thousands of practicing professionals in the United States represented by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. There is an incomplete introduction to photogrammetry available on Wikipedia[1]. For a more thorough introduction to photogrammetry I recommend “Introduction to Modern Photogrammetry” by Edward Mikhail[2]. Also valuable to read is “Digital Photogrammetry” by Toni Schenk[3]. For a complete description of photogrammetry please see the “Manual of Photogrammetry 6th Edition”, a 1,318 page tome[4]. Recently I have been invited by a scientific publisher to write a definitive text on forensic photogrammetry.
I would like to address your concerns one by one.
What was the height of the photographer? This variable affects the height of the camera which is discussed immediately below.
What was the height of the camera? The height of the camera can be important. In this case however, the horizon is visible, and Earhart is standing erect, which tells us that the photographer held the camera substantially perpendicular to Earhart. The photograph was measured for both barrel and pincushion distortion, both of which were absent. This means that there is virtually no distortion to the length of Earhart observed in the photograph.
How far from Earhart was he? The methodology that I employed is independent of this distance variable. Therefore the distance of the photographer from Earhart does not need to be known.
Does the camera type matter? The type of camera used for the historical imagery and the reference imagery does not matter. The optical principles apply equally to both. Both images must be tested and corrected for any distortions, including lens distortion, and rotational errors.
Does the focal length of the lens matter? Yes. A long lens will distort less than a shorter lens. These distortions were detected and corrected in the paper.
Does the angle from the rear skid through the main wheels matter? This depends on the method used to develop the scale relationship in the photograph. Raising the rear skid causes the engine, propeller and cowling to tilt downward. If a vertical scale is used in or around these components, the tilt will causes an error in the calculation. The method used in the paper uses a horizontal scale to circumvent this problem, because the vertical and horizontal distortions introduced by a pure vertical tilt are independent dimensions, resulting solely in anamorphic vertical compression. This method only works, because a substantial amount of effort was made to recreate the oblique angle with which the historical photograph was taken, within the reference photograph.
Do the shoes worn by Earhart matter? Yes. As I said in my report, the heels cannot be directly measured in this photograph. Most women’s shoes from this period appear to have had 1” or 2” heels[5]. However, the imagery does not support this as there are no visible shoelaces in the left-hand shoe, and the toes are curved upward. Earhart was known to wear boots and the limited evidence in the photograph suggests that she was wearing boots in the photograph. Boots sometimes have shorter heels which would explain the upward curved toes. In my opinion the shoes may have ½” heels. You may substitute a different amount if you wish.
Does the hair compression seen on Earhart matter? Yes. As I said in my report, there is little in the scientific literature that describes the height of hair above the top of the head. My best estimate based on circumstantial information is ½”. You may substitute a different amount if you wish.
Needless to say, photogrammetry is a complex topic. If it were simple, we wouldn’t need a 1,318 page to explain it. I would be happy to instruct you in its intricacies and subtleties should you wish. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me. I would be happy to share with you my decades of experience working in this highly specialized area.
Sincerely,
Jeff B. Glickman, BSCS, BCFE, FACFE, DABFE
PHOTEK – First in Forensic Imaging
President, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Puget Sound Region
Chair Emeritus, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Seattle Section
Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners
Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Examiners
Member Emeritus, State of Washington Forensic Investigations Council
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry
[2] Mikhail, Edward, et. al., “Introduction to Modern Photogrammetry”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2001.
[3] Schenk, Toni, “Digital Photogrammetry”, TerraScience, Laurelville, OH, 1999.
[4] McGlone, J. Chris, Ed., “Manual of Photogrammetry 6th Edition”, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland, 2013.
[5] Email correspondence, Suzanne Petersen, Collections Manager, BATA Shoe Museum, Toronto, Canada.
-
Mention of camera height, compelled me to search for photos that may have captured the device that may have taken the photo that Jeff studied. In the attachment below, I ran across one of interest, that seems to have been taken about the same time period(via dress). In front of Amelia are several tripods, one of which seems to have a box camera mounted atop...it is probably of no relevence, but thought it interesting and provides one's imagination a chance to ponder the chances that this might be the camera used to take the studied image.
-
I believe the main focus was on providing an estimate of height, but was wondering if other data was collected as well during the trip, they being, measurements of the wheel fairings and the distance between the foot pegs. ( Wheel fairing attachment by Neff Jacobs). I placed an arrow to boots that look rather familiar,...but am not claiming they are the ones worn by Amelia in the studied photo.
If the boots Earhart is wearing while standing on the pegs is used,( seem same time period) what would be her estimated height?
-
I placed an arrow to boots that look rather familiar,...but am not claiming they are the ones worn by Amelia in the studied photo.
If the boots Earhart is wearing while standing on the pegs is used,( seem same time period) what would be her estimated height?
They are probably the same boots she is wearing in the photo Jeff used. Jeff estimated that they added a half inch to her barefoot height. It's an equestrian style known as a "jodhpur boot" usually worn with "jodhpurs," ankle length riding pants like the ones AE is wearing in the photo of her sitting on the wheel pants of her Vega. Jodhpur boots and pants are named after the Indian province of Jodhpur where they first became popular with British cavalry units in the late 19th century. Equestrian apparel was de rigueur for aviators from WWI through the mid-1930s. Even after riding breeches and jodhpur pants went out of style for flyers, fashionable airline pilots wore jodhpur boots (as referenced by Ernest Gann in "Fate Is The Hunter.")
Today, jodhpur boots have elastic side panels as shown below, but in Earhart's day (and in my day as a teenage horseman and pilot) they had a buckled leather strap that encircled the ankle.
-
On the "camera height", she appears to be leaning and resting (almost sitting) against (possibly wheel faring) therefore one can not get an accurate height...I wouldn't think.
-
On the "camera height", she appears to be leaning and resting (almost sitting) against (possibly wheel faring) therefore one can not get an accurate height...I wouldn't think.
That's why Jeff used the photo he did.
"The height of the camera can be important. In this case however, the horizon is visible, and Earhart is standing erect, which tells us that the photographer held the camera substantially perpendicular to Earhart. The photograph was measured for both barrel and pincushion distortion, both of which were absent. This means that there is virtually no distortion to the length of Earhart observed in the photograph."
-
I did not see anything in the report regarding this specific aircraft's history, and how that might, or might not, have any bearing on the measurements taken and their interpretation. Was that considered?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I did not see anything in the report regarding this specific aircraft's history, and how that might, or might not, have any bearing on the measurements taken and their interpretation. Was that considered?
Yes.
-
That's good, since the aircraft was apparently involved in at least one accident that affected the nose area, the subject of some of the measurements.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC.
-
That's good, since the aircraft was apparently involved in at least one accident that affected the nose area, the subject of some of the measurements.
On September 30, 1930 the aircraft nosed-over in a landing accident at NAS Norfolk. We can safely assume that the cowling sustained damage. We don't know whether the photo used in Glickman's study was taken before or after the accident, but it doesn't matter. Repairing or replacing the cowling would not alter its dimensions.
-
If the distance between the foot-pegs could be ascertained,it may be useful in garnering an estimate of Earhart's tibia length. Of interest as well, is the diameter of the foot-pegs( tube or end cap)....this may help nail down the exact heel height.
-
Ric,
I was wondering how many photos in which you were holding the surveyor's rod were taken, and if there might be an example that would show the numbering on the rod more sharply.
I really like Jeff's idea of using the surveyor's rod and overlaying the Earhart image over the existing vega's position....very ingenius. Reading Jeff's report and viewing the images, I was looking for detail, as I usually do, but found I couldn't read all the numbering on the rod you were holding.
In this post: http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1793.msg39139.html#msg39139 you mention that you are some 5' 10-1/2 inches tall,...I presume barefoot. The image in which you are holding the rod next to the vega does not show the numbering very clearly above the four foot mark....I have a friend who is good at working on images help me,out of curiousity,try to determine what your height would read on the rod....he came up with about 5' 8-1/4 .....Puzzling.....see attachment.
Since a telescoping rod was used,may it have slid down unnoticed ,in upon itself ( some 2 inches)in the process of moving about the plane and in the very limited time frame you were working under, at the time Jeff captured your image, or am I looking at things incorrectly, or other, such as our attempt to estimate what your height reads on the blurred surveyor's rod is flawed?
-
What does TIGHAR know about this history of this aircraft from the time Amelia sold it to that private museum to when the Smithsonian acquired it? Were any parts repaired or replaced during those decades?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I was wondering how many photos in which you were holding the surveyor's rod were taken, and if there might be an example that would show the numbering on the rod more sharply.
Many photos were taken. Jeff has them. I don't. Being able to read the measuring rod would not enable you to replicate Jeff's work unless you are a trained photogrammetrist. The measuring rod did not slip down. Great care was taken to get everything right. Jeff's report stands as written unless he changes it based on new information.
-
What does TIGHAR know about this history of this aircraft from the time Amelia sold it to that private museum to when the Smithsonian acquired it? Were any parts repaired or replaced during those decades?
The aircraft was given to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Before making the transfer, Eahart swapped out the low-time engine for an identical high-time engine. The cowling, of course, remained the same. The aircraft was displayed hung from the ceiling. I saw there it there when I was a kid. It was later traded to the Smithsonian. They restored the exterior it to make it look more attractive. There is no record of anybody doing anything that would change the dimensions of the aircraft or any of its components. I can't even imagine what such changes would be.
-
I'm not a trained photogrammetrist, nor a graphics artist.
But it seems likely to me that the camera was placed to replicate the lens-eye-view of the aircraft in the original photo.
And to get the scale in the same plane as the reference point chosen for the comparison.
And that Ric is not in the plane of the yardstick, but back aways.
And that the camera lens is below the top of his head.
And that the scale therefore reads less than the known height of same.
I could be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time in my life.
Won't be the last.
(https://moleski.net/images/pix/Ric%20vs%20scale.jpg)