.
Has this been accepted as being true up until recently, by every knotting ‘aficionado’?
That article calling the source of the Zeppelin Bend into question has bigger problems than the story it is supposed to call into question. See thread starting at:
Yes, apparently one more knot myth, finally exposed.
This was presented in this forum back at the time of
KM’s publishing Giles’s article. It’s a shame that the
information didn’t get revealed earlier, when pursuit
of details could’ve reached the SAIL author(s) for
elaboration. Sadly, there is much in the knotting
literature that is disconnected from reality.
–dl*
I guess I have to take these one by one :
(1) the docking procedure typically employed shackling two wires together;This proves nothing. Typical procedure doesn't preclude the use of bends on the many ropes of a blimp.
(2) in later life Rosendahl claimed ignorance of the knotB.S. As shown in the [url=http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.30]other thread[/url], this is based on [b]multiple layers[/b] of unverifiable hearsay.
(3) a Zeppelin knot cannot be untied under load; (4) a bend joining two ropes would be an awkward way to moor anything; and (5) a rigger who flew on the R100 reported they always used a Rolling Hitch.Again, this proves nothing. There are many uses for bends on the various blimp lines including extending mooring lines. And mooring lines aren't always under tension.
From Joe Collins:
[b]Collins recollects: "Charles Rosendahl was commander of the Los Angeles. Rigid airships were new to the Navy, and a lot of old-line battleship admirals still hadn't fully accepted either airships or airplanes. The Los Angeles had to prove herself . . . and Lieutenant Commander Rosendahl couldn't afford to take any chances. There was only one knot he allowed me to teach the new airshipmen, either for bending lines together on the airship or for use on the mooring lines. I called it the Rosendahl bend. [/b]
Notice he didn’t say it was used as a primary mooring method!
This so-called expose is based on logical fallacies and weak evidence that is often the root of urban myths. How ironic.
So, your stance is nothing proven on both sides of the argument then? None of this ballyhoo effects affects the performance of the knot.
No, you don’t “have to;” the cited thread contains
sufficient reading for those who are interested.
Would that the knot were as strong as your
conviction on its hearsay nominal history!
Right, "on the many ropes of a blimp" --such as ... ? Somehow this supposed single-knot instruction escaped any notice, except by the good fortune of one supposed story teller, Joe Collins.(1) the docking procedure typically employed shackling two wires together;This proves nothing. Typical procedure doesn't preclude the use of bends on the many ropes of a blimp.
It's an occasional mistake that when, assessing the strength of some multiply knotted line, the assessment sums the weaknesses, instead of regarding simply the weakest link among them --as though multiplying probabilities. The myth grew on one magazine's article supposedly quoting one supposed instructing serviceman under then-Cmdr. Rosendahl's command (at a site which is denied by the commander).(2) in later life Rosendahl claimed ignorance of the knotB.S. As shown in the [url=http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.30]other thread[/url], this is based on [b]multiple layers[/b] of unverifiable hearsay.
The same magazine’s editor at the time of that article
conveys hearing from Rosendahl in correcting the site
of his command and denying knowledge of the knot
(and in so doing, in showing no hint that special
knotting was at issue or importance; and that maybe
the crew had figured things out for themselves, which
belies the hearsay that HE ordered knotting procedures.
From [url=http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/zeppelin-knot-zmaz80jfzraw.aspx#axzz2XLitgA8w]Joe Collins[/url]:[b]Collins recollects: "Charles Rosendahl was commander of the Los Angeles. Rigid airships were new to the Navy, and a lot of old-line battleship admirals still hadn't fully accepted either airships or airplanes. The Los Angeles had to prove herself . . . and Lieutenant Commander Rosendahl couldn't afford to take any chances. There was only one knot he allowed me to teach the new airshipmen, either for bending lines together on the airship or for use on the mooring lines. I called it the Rosendahl bend. [/b]Notice he didn’t say it was used as a primary mooring method!
“He” didn’t say anything; these words come in SAIL via
an editor & his brother (who I think is who conveyed this
supposed Joe Collins account). “There was only one knot …”
sure has the odor of BS --goodness, we have trouble getting
down to 5 knots! Were there such strict (and surprising,
even radical) instruction, I think word of it --and the only
one to remember knot-- would’ve leaked out long before
a “Joe Collins” went around telling stories (or being part
of a legend built by someone else). --or would’ve come
to surface upon the celebrity introduced by the article.
No, Alpineer, the effect of the knot in rope isn’t affected
by its history; but, 75RR, one might omit some names for it
as good alternatives. AND the loss of one legend/origin
leave open the search for others (though I know of two, which
came after the article by their own paths --just “knot tyers”
fiddling, w/no more interesting history of origin : no real
“knot users”!).
–dl*
If you’re replying to me, I’d say that the argument is far stronger for the veracity of Joe Collins’ story, as we have a much more direct account of his words, and there is also record of a Joseph Collins in the US Navy in the right time frame.
None of this ballyhoo effects the performance of the knot.Agreed.
Here you go:
http://tinyurl.com/6qzqe4m
http://tinyurl.com/7g3hjtp
http://tinyurl.com/75weqr5
Somehow this supposed single-knot instruction escaped any notice, except by the good fortune of one supposed story teller, Joe Collins.And what if no one passed on the knowledge and it was lost to history? Would that prove its non-use or non-existence? Of course not! What fallacious logic.
And notice that it wasn’t a single-knot instruction… it was a single BEND instruction. Big difference. And most understandable considering how lousy so many other bends are.
The same magazine's editor at the time of that article conveys hearing from RosendahlWhere's the original letter? Oops, not available. Where's the letter that refers to that letter? Oops, that layer is not available either. We don't even know who wrote the original letter or the exact wording of its contents.
It’s kinda strange that an elderly Rosendahl is writing letters to an obscure magazine on his deathbed. And in the 1/10,000 chance that this occurred, an elderly lack of recollection isn’t a refutation.
You’re not dealing with logic here, and little of sense:
Were it 'lost to history," we wouldn’t be talking about “it”!
The logic I advanced is that any such remarkable,
novel knot that was force-fed into troops by military
authority should have a greater trail to follow than
the mere hearsay of one supposed instructor --i.p.,
there should be the many instructed, and some copy
of their knowledge by those attentive to knotting
(sailor types, esp.), and even military documents.
(It’s hard to believe that instruction would go on devoid
of how-to-tie images, such as we can find otherwise.)
??? Where's Joe Collins --oops ... ?!The same magazine's editor [Boating] at the time of that article conveys hearing from RosendahlWhere's the original letter? Oops, not available. Where's the letter that refers to that letter? Oops, that layer is not available either. We don't even know who wrote the original letter or the exact wording of its contents.
The alleged letter from Rosendahl to Lee Payne we
might yet hope is in Boating archives (presuming
that it was to this address that R. would write,
to the magazine that published the “Collins” account).
The alleged letter from Payne to the small-publication
“Wingfoot” editor is possibly beyond recall, gone with
publication & person, now.
It's kinda strange that an elderly Rosendahl is writing letters to an obscure magazine on his deathbed. And in the 1/10,000 chance that this occurred, an elderly lack of recollection isn't a refutation.[i]Boating[/i] is hardly an "obscure magazine"! Rosendahl's condition at the time of his alleged writing wasn't indicated explicitly and shouldn't be speculated upon. IF he indeed wrote, he must've had the wit to read the article attentively enough to note the stated location of training. Elderly people often recall historical events better than recent ones, but all memories can be questioned. --even the alleged one of Bob Payne of Joe Collins's story telling sometime ago on the helm of a ship.
.:. The possible avenues of research to us now, as I see it,
are:
- further confirmation re “Joe Collins” (though Roo has found some);
- finding whatever military documentation remains about
zeppelin ropework; - learning anything further from those folks who take particular
fancy in either zeppelins or military history; - reaching Boating for possible reach into their archives
to find the alleged Rosendahl-to-Payne letter. - anything similar re Wingfoot --if not authors/editors,
readers?
–dl*
Actually, many very real things get lost to history (including whole languages). Here’s one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Where's Joe Collins --oops ... ?!Where's Rosendahl? Where's his alleged letter? Where's the letter that conveyed its alleged contents to the person who wrote a footnote about it? That's a three to one difference. The Collins account would be accepted in US court. The footnote-missing letter-missing letter-Rosendahl trail would be (and is) laughed at.
The alleged letter from Rosendahl to Lee Payne we might yet hope is in Boating archives.Go for it. It'd be great to have the actual content, context and, with the help of a document expert, verify authorship. If all is established and it cannot be reconciled with Collins' account, it's still not a closed case.
??? You can’t be serious : R. is well documented; JC hardly so.
This is not even a debatable similarity.
Where's his alleged letter? Where's the letter that conveyed its alleged contents to the person who wrote a footnote about it? That's a three to one difference.When considering the strength of a chain one regards the weakest links, not the sum of them. The first of your trio is aburd, the other two remain, with resp. slight and even slighter chances of recovery. But perhaps there will be people who recall the discussion of the revealed information.
The Collins account would be accepted in US court. The footnote-missing letter-missing letter-Rosendahl trail would be (and is) laughed at.What's the sound of one person laughing? We have a magazine's hearsay that there was a Joe Collins who made some assertion; we have a newsletter's hearsay that this mag.'s editor made some assertion : we can accept the two reports but not the assertions. Well, actually, we're one-off on the latter, having Giles's testimony; but I do not doubt that --he has credibility as good at the others' ink on paper, for me.
And beyond all of this, we have the serious questions
about how such a knot would be employed at all,
irrespective of knot origins. For that, there is likely
a great deal of information that will find the use of
an end-2-end knot bearing heavy loading simply
not much at all in practice (so, hardly the sort of
thing to be given such special instructional emphasis!).
The alleged letter from Rosendahl to Lee Payne we might yet hope is in Boating archives.... , with the help of a document expert, verify authorship. If all is established and it cannot be reconciled with Collins' account, it's still not a closed case. [/quote] My how strongly you cling to this myth! It's an interesting thought that someonElse might've written under Rosendahl's or Payne's name in order to dent the legend of a knot. And you would find this more conceivable than that Bob Payne or Joe Collins fabricated a legend for an invention?
Of note is that apparently --though how would it otherwise
than via Boating mag. get broadcast?-- nOne wrote in to
Boating to give similar testimony to Rosendahl; i.e., that
the supposed recipients of Collins’s instruction didn’t write
to say “Huh…?!”. But neither did any write in to concur
in his account.
–dl*
They are both dead. You can’t be serious that Collins is a fake. We have a first hand interview from Payne with lots and lots of details that bolster his case.
When considering the strength of a chain one regards the weakest links, not the sum of them.False analogy. Very false. Every time a translation or a relay is made, errors and misrepresentations can come into play.
The first of your trio is aburd, the other two remain, with resp. slight and even slighter chances of recovery.What? Where's the letter that refers to the Rosendahl letter? Where's the purported Rosendahl letter? Let's SEE it. Get a scan and post it here.
We have a magazine's hearsay that there was a Joe CollinsNot hearsay. It was a first-person interview. [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yW-2GoXscmgC&pg=RA2-PA87&dq=rosendahl+collins&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ItvNUduMC-i7igL2nIDgDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rosendahl%20collins&f=false] Both brothers contributed to the article[/url], remember?
And beyond all of this, we have the serious questions about how such a knot would be employed at all, irrespective of knot origins. For that, there is likely a great deal of information that will find the use of an end-2-end knot bearing heavy loading simply not much at all in practice (so, hardly the sort of thing to be given such special instructional emphasis!).I don't know about you, but I need to make ropes longer or join ropes all the time. My previous links showing the many ropes used on blimps should make it obvious that bends would get tied.
It's an interesting thought that someonElse might've written under Rosendahl's or Payne's name in order to dent the legend of a knot.What if the letter was from a relative of Rosendahl, but a hasty read made someone think it was Charles Rosendahl himself? Why do you think historians insist on seeing the original document rather than trusting some intermediary's boneheaded relay? AD FONTES!
I contacted Boating, and got this reply from their editor-in-chief:
[b]Regrettably, our archives were lost during a move some years back. I wish I could help, but cannot.[/b]
No, no (or “nooope” 
), this is absurd : we have an
alleged story of a “Collins” (bolstered by your research
into Navy files, yes); this is nothing like all of the
documentation about Rosendahl. And, as for an
“interview”, according to the --challenged-- account
of brother Lee, Bob is who informed Lee of JC, and
I think it is that Bob simply recounts a long-ago
story. (Or did he recall and re-contact … ?)
Many thanks for contacting Boating;
many laments for the reply of loss --a dead end. :-[
I concur but only in degree --so, not "very" but possibly; there is still merit to assessing each link's credibility (like assigning probabilities).When considering the strength of a chain one regards the weakest links, not the sum of them.False analogy. Very false. Every time a translation or a relay is made, errors and misrepresentations can come into play.
We have : Boating asserting ; Wingfoot asserting . And in neither can we go further by direct pursuit (unless the less-likely, Wingfoot, can yet yield results somehow). In short, I give high credibility/probability to Giles's account of (vice the on-line/etc. copy of Boating...) Wingfoot --yes, another "layer" but w/o decrease in believability IMO.The first of your trio is aburd, the other two remain, with resp. slight and even slighter chances of recovery.What? Where's the letter that refers to the Rosendahl letter? Where's the purported Rosendahl letter? Let's SEE it.
The brothers' names are given, but it needn't be the case that both are so involved (they might not care to show any separation in this regard --why bother?). More to the point (against my citing "long-ago" story by JC recalled by Bob P) is that the article asserts a (then) [u]current[/u] status of Joe Collins (and we can find some information on the (USS) [i]President Madison[/i]).We have a magazine's hearsay that there was a Joe CollinsNot hearsay. It was a first-person interview. [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yW-2GoXscmgC&pg=RA2-PA87&dq=rosendahl+collins&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ItvNUduMC-i7igL2nIDgDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rosendahl%20collins&f=false] Both brothers contributed to the article[/url], remember?
And this is quite contrary to X1's & Inkanyezi's boating experience. One should expect the regular operations of a zeppelin to have been anticipated with appropriate cordage lengths, not needing adjustment on any sort of regular frequency. Further ...And beyond all of this, we have the serious questions about how such a knot would be employed at all, irrespective of knot origins. For that, there is likely a great deal of information that will find the use of an end-2-end knot bearing heavy loading simply not much at all in practice (so, hardly the sort of thing to be given such special instructional emphasis!).I don't know about you, but I need to make ropes longer or join ropes all the time.
My previous links showing the many ropes used on blimps should make it obvious that bends would get tied.Not at all. Recall the alleged emphasis of the supposed zeppelin knot use in cases of mooring and withstanding surges of the entire craft --not some small-stuff use. So, please, articulate the circumstances in which some large ropes of the blimp are handled and needed to be tied --where, when, by whom--, AND are needed to be "UNtied in a hurry" after great force had been put on it by the blimp (when being moved in/out of a hangar)!?
E.g., sometimes a sailor needs to extend his anchor
rhode, and so out goes the extended line, the knot
somewhere in the drink : where’s the in-a-hurry need
for this? Or the Alaskan crabbers’ extending pot warps
with lines with a carrick bend, which also goes out
and down into the drink, and is hardly accessible for
any “in a hurry” untying. Now, with the blimp, I’m
trying to conceive of a joined line being accessible
for untying. And, again, of such extension being needed
when the circumstances I think will be shown to be
pretty consistently set/sized --docking anticipating
the vessel and all.
And note that Giles, who made a Ph.D thesis study of
it all, is similarly puzzled by this.
:o And this person would bother to write because ... ??! Really, this is reaching beyond the pail (you might accidentally kick the bucket on such a reach!).It's an interesting thought that someonElse might've written under Rosendahl's or Payne's name in order to dent the legend of a knot.What if the letter was from a relative of Rosendahl, ...
Why do you think historians insist on seeing the original document rather than trusting some intermediary's boneheaded relay? AD FONTES!And so I'd like to see some "original [u]document[/u]", too! A magazine article doesn't count so much as that; so, I look to navy records as a hope.
–dl*
Collins said, “It could be untied in a hurry, even after a sudden surge”. Notice he didn’t say it had to be untied in a hurry. This indicates to me only that it resists jamming. You may be trying to read too much into it.
An extension of mooring or grounding lines may be needed in the case of ground obstructions such as buildings, hillsides, other large objects, etc. It may also be beneficial to be anchored at a higher-than-normal elevation for longer observation range. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d prefer to untie any extensions as they reel the craft in, especially if they wanted to use the free end of the standard-length line.
It may be that Collins’ comment about hangar operations was incidental since he was talking about wind surges, and not meant to say something about the bend in question.
If you look at the second page of this article, you’ll see two lines coming down. Now you may or may not like the practice, but the two ends could be tied together after being passed under a restraining object.
This is all speculation, and there may have been other ways they were skinning their various cats, but I hope that at least expands the horizons of your imagination.
Since we don't know the contents of the letter and apparently never will, it could be any number of things. It might just be a relative who wanted to say, "I was very close to him, but I never heard of this Rosendahl bend". Who knows?What if the letter was from a relative of Rosendahl, ...And this person would bother to write because ... ??!
Well, a nit amid the speculation, but his words are stronger
than this --my miss in quoting–: “It could always be untied
in a hurry …”. That comes as part of the knot’s reason d’etre.
An extension of mooring or grounding lines may be needed ...I remain puzzled, but to the assertion comes at least concurrence in the general need, in citing the use of [u]some[/u] sort of bending line-to-line with the use of a [i]rolling hitch[/i].
Of the evidence in this case, for terms of true/false evaluation,
I see:
A. article --of Boating, product of Bob & Lee Payne–;
C. Joe Collins’s alleged account, conveyed in by Boating in A;
W. the WingFootNote (i.e., it’s assertion of letter P.);
P. Lee Payne’s account conveyed in W;
R. Rosendahl’s assertions as conveyed by P in W.
One belief would be that Bob & Joe conspired to propagate
a legend for a knot that (likely) Joe devised. This would
explain the carefully arranged details of A. It would make
understandable W/P/R. (If C is true, it’s a shame that Joe
didn’t at the time --given the alleged direction re knot Z.–
ask Rosendahl about its origins (politely with enthusiastic
curiosity, not doubting a superior!). And, in any case, it’s
curious that he doesn’t make any mention of his learning
the knot, or from where Rosendahl might have done so!?)
Counter this is that C is true. Then one can muse that
W wanted to maybe give thrust to his (editor’s) own
disbelief about C. (I’m assuming that W contacted P
of Boating for permission to publish a repeat of A in W.,
to which P supplied FYI re the issue as an update.)
And I am abashed that the skepticism & questions re
A&C did not arise in me way back …, but only after
some other & better researcher raised them.
… and will hope we can add to this research!
“Come, Watson, the game is afoot!”
Might someone have personnel registries for the
container ship President Madison in use during
the 1970s (scrapped in '99) ? --showing both Colins
& B.Payne (which supports either conclusion, and i.p.
Lee’s alleged assertion (“P.”) that he learned of the
knot via brother Bob).
–dl*
One thing to note about this argued history of the
zeppelin knot is that its origin is yet left unasserted.
What facts we know are:
-
In 1976 Boating presented the knot in an article.
-
About a decade earlier, Bob Thrun independently discovered
the knot for himself; he presented it in a small caving newsletter.
cf http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685
–to wit:
My favorite bend is the [i]Rosendahl Bend[/i] because I re-invented it and published it in 1967. I published in a local caving club newsletter. The club had about 70 members and a bunch of exchanges with other clubs. I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies. I think that I had the first publication of this bend. The exchanges were free to reprint my article, but did not do so. At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up my article. It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.
- Circa 1980-11, Dan Lehman independently discovered
the knot for himself (w/o broadcast).
The latter two --esp. mine-- surfacings of the knot didn’t
account for its general popularity, I’m pretty sure.
It’s odd that in the supposed Collins account that there
is no mention of originality --esp., as he is quoted in
recounting that in some 3 decades of knots interest
and searching for the knot in others’ use he found no
hint of it. Why did he not remark that either Rosendahl
invented it or at least wonder where R. learned it?
For a knot that so impressed him, it seems odd that
he leaves its origin unremarked, even to question!
So, we are left again with a knot history with loose
ends, yet to be tied to some further history or origin.
Now, >>IF<< we come to learn enough from extant
records to cast serious doubt on Collins’s alleged claims
–i.e., to either believe he’s accurately reported about
but then doubt his story; or to doubt the article’s
assertions about Collins–,
where does that leave us? There is the fact of the
knot IN the article. I guess we then look at Bob Payne
as holding the key (he could’ve forged Collins’ account,
but the knot came out, no doubt!). My feeling is that
there’s too much story w/Collins for it to be B.P.'s solo
fabrication (if that it is); so, would be a joint conspiracy.
And conceivably Thrun’s discovery came prior theirs.
OTOH, if some extant records could show the knot’s
use as Collins’s account asserts, then … how/where
did Rosendahl come to know of it!?!
–dl*
Why? We know his history, intimate w/zeppelins, yes;
so what does this article bring new to our consideration?
By the alleged Collins account, there is no hint of origin,
or no mention of it --only that R. stipulated it (but not
about how R. came to know it). By the alleged L.Payne
account, R. denied knowledge of the knot and showed
little interest in knots.
–dl*
Okay, so the point is that there might be a connection
to German rope use. Yes, wherever we might find some
evidence of the knot will be worth the looking. And in
such particular-to-zeppelins areas, the absence of the
knot, and the evidence of what IS presented, should
go some way to weighing against its sudden appearance
where there is only the Collins rumor.
As for the name, that is clearly given NOT by even the
supposed Collins --who, recall, named it after “R.” not
“z.”–, but by the Boating article alone; I see no mystery
here, and no clue to origins.
Now all we need is a German Speaking volunteer to find and delve into the Zeppelin Field Manuals.
Heh, we only need IMAGES! AND this goes to my point
about wondering how knotting instruction --esp. of some
novel, otherwise-unknown specially needed / important
knot-- could be done without images in knotting documentation!