Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Another round on the fate of Amelia Earhart in today's news
    From: Don Seltzer
    Date: 2016 Nov 2, 09:25 -0400
    It took only a few minutes of web searching to come up with a far better image of Amelia's arms obviously taken at the very same photo shoot.  In this one, the resolution and lighting are better, and it is easier to make out the actual wrist and elbow  of the right arm.  I will leave it to Jeff Glickman to work his photo analysis hocus pocus on this version.  With visible skin creases for the elbow, it seems that he was estimating the location too high on the original.

    To tie this back to a current navigation thread, a better analysis would have included several cross checks of the data against other possible measurements.  If we know that one of the bones was 25.4 cm long, why not double check that pixel estimate against other body features.  With all of the photos of Amelia that exist, surely there is a way to determine the spacing of her facial features. 

    Don Seltzer


    Inline image 1

    On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Gary LaPook <NoReply_LaPook@fer3.com> wrote:
    ...Here is the link to Glickman's arm bones report. 

    https://tighar.org/Projects/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!

    File:


       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site