This has been studied indepth at Thundersplace. The penis size poll chart there of over 2500 guys closely matches doctors' studies, so it's reasonable to think Thundersplace's height vs penis size chart is also going to be credible. With about 1500 in a height vs penis size poll the results indicate that height is moderately (not weak or strong) correlated with penis size. The average difference isn't much -with guys of average height being 1/8 of an inch longer than short guys, and tall guys being 1/8 of an inch longer than guys of average height (therefore tall guys 1/4" longer than short guys). That's not much of a difference, though still a difference. Where the correlation turned up more evident is amongst the outlier penis sizes. In other words, taller guys are significantly more likely to have a big penis than short guys, with average height guys falling inbetween. And short guys significantly more likely to have a short penis than tall guys are, with guys of average height falling inbetween. All in all the correlation is of moderate strength.
Sizesurvey ran a poll with over 3100 guys and it's results show a strong correlation between height and penis size. However, Thundersplace's showing it to be of moderate relativity should be considered more reliable since Thundersplace's polls have been shown to be credible. So sizesurvey's result is an indication a correlation does exist, but the level of correlation is indicated as stronger than the correlation really is, as polls such as that are typically prone to some exaggeration.
There have been a couple of very small doctor studies years back, and ABC news and such reported that no correlation was found. However, that is not what each doctor actually said. The doctors said there was not a lot of relationship and therefore unreliable as an indicator. The doctors did not present any charts, the samplings were about 50 in one and 100 in the other. If they only looked at the overall average and only saw about 1/8" between the heights then yes that could be stated as not much difference. With such a small sampling they may not have even looked at the outliers. Since no charts were presented one can only speculate, but ABC news didn't let that lack of detail keep them from running with and adjusting what the doctors had actually said.
As far as hands are concerned, I'm aware of a doctor study that indicated a strong (I'm thinking it said strong) correlation between the index finger and penis size. I'll find the study if anyone insists.
Thundersplace also has a shoe size vs penis size study. The overall correlation is weak (but does exist) and the outliers correlation is moderate.
Polls such as this thread asking people if there is a correlation or not is almost completely useless info. People don't know. Many people typically respond with isolated instances as their evidence as to whether a correlation exists or not. The problem is that correlations can't be determined to exist or not exist by isolated instances, and if one exists it can't be determined how strong or weak the correlation is from such posts.
I'm someone who has looked into this subject far more indepth than people usually do. I type out these posts but I do wonder why I bother. Those who believe a correlation doesn't exist will continue in their ignorance, completely unphased.
Here is a bigger study that indicated "highly correlated". It didn't make it into the news.
Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 ...[Eur Urol. 2001] - PubMed Result
OBJECTIVE: The knowledge of normal variations in the size of male external genitalia is of considerable interest to several disciplines. We carried out an extensive study in young Italian males to provide estimates of normal variations of penile dimensions. METHODS: The penile length in flaccid and stretched states and the penile circumference were measured in a random group of 3,300 young men aged 17-19 years and free from endocrine disorders and from congenital or acquired abnormalities of the penis. In a random sample of 325 subjects of the same set of people, penile length and circumference were also correlated with weight and height. Statistical analysis was performed with the Sperman test, because our data were not normally distributed as tested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < 0.01). RESULTS: The median values of penile dimensions recorded in the present study are flaccid length 9.0 cm, flaccid circumference, at the middle of the shaft, 10.0 cm, and stretched length 12.5 cm. We also observed that the penile dimensions are highly correlated with height and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Since penile length and circumference correlate with anthropometric parameters such as weight and height, we suggest to consider themselves as two bodily measures which display a wide extent of normal variability along the general population.