A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Don Seltzer
Date: 2016 Nov 2, 09:25 -0400
...Here is the link to Glickman's arm bones report.
Earhart/Archives/Research/ Bulletins/78_EarhartArms/AE- Arm-FINAL.pdf
Notice that he is "estimating" the critical measurement points through flesh and clothing. He also does his calculation in "pixels" with no comparison to the linear measurements made by doctor Hoodless. If his elbow data point estimate was off by just 4 pixels, out of a total of 618, pixels then the ratio would be the normal .73 not the .76 that Glickman comes up with. Or with an estimation error of the top of the humerus then a smaller error in the placement of the elbow data point would result in the same normal ratio. The same with an error of the estimate of the wrist. In fact, if there were only a 3 pixel error in the estimation of each of the three data points then you get the normal .73 ratio! He even admits that since all the data points were "estimated" that he cannot place an error estimate on his results. This report is pure junk.
And just how big are the pixels that Glickman is using? He doesn't tell us. But since he says that his measurement is of the same humerus that Doctor Hoodless measured at 25.4 cm and Glickman says that the humerus is 267.2 pixels long then simple division gives us the answer, each of Glilckman's pixels is 0.095 cm the same as .95 mm the same as 0.037 inches one-twenty-sixths of an inch. A three pixel miss-estimate would be only about one-tenth of an inch, through fat and clothes! Good luck with that!