How tall was Amelia?

[Jerry Germann]

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. 

[Jerry Germann]

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?

[Monty Fowler]

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

[Ric Gillespie]

       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.

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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.