On what basis do you now accept that the 1980 Lee and Bob Paine article was hearsay
(re Joe Collins story)? And if so, why persist with the name 'Zeppelin'.
Could it be perhaps that Charles Rosendahl is associated with the 'Zeppelin' end-to-end
joining knot simply because he was the officer in charge - and by default - he is responsible?
This is somewhere among these forum pages;
it resulted from
Knotting Matters articles by a student
of airships who found a re-print of the above-cited
article (wasn't it ca. 1976?) in a mid-USA airships
newsletter with notes reporting that Lee Payne
had told of Rosendahl's writing --in response to the
original article-- to correct the location of his training
school/base (in Lakewood NJ? was it, not somewhere
to the south (Norfolk Va?)--, and offering also words
that he was unaware of the subject knot. (!!)
Why call it "z." :: yes, your point is good but as that
name has stuck, it --for the time being-- serves to
denote what is wanted, and instruction re history
can follow at some other time.
The "hearsay" IMO is ... :
a) Pub'd article by Paynes [fact]
b) content of (a) [subject to question : IIRC, it was
seemingly not
their direct dealing with the reputed
old Navy guy (whom Roo did some research for and found
at least some indication of verification, for the name),
but just brother Bob's recounting of encountering the guy
aboard some vessel they shared time upon. So, it could be
that either Bob or the guy simply had a novelty for which
they wanted to build a *legend* for enhanced presentation!?
(And, otherwise, as the KM-writing airship student came to
wonder --and which I'm abashed to not have questioned
more, myself--, how does an end-2-end knot come into
play (regularly and importantly, esp. such as to make some
particular knot a stand-out) during well-expected airship mooring?!)
The newwletter editor sought permissions for his re-publishing
and so learned from brother Lee this most intriguing "hearsay",
and included it as a footnote. (I will accept as "fact" that there
was this newsletter and ... that the KM author is honest and
accurate in reporting. And, after all, it's not as though we otherwise
have a groundswell of echoes of endorsement of the original account
from other sailors; nor do we have any official/USNavy documentation
to this effect (IMO, I'd think that were such a knot so commendable
there'd be an instruction sheet for it, issued to pertinent servicemen
for their edification.)
... But, here's a tying method which should get you the knot verbally:
Dan can you also supply a clear photo of this description...
it's late at night and I have just finished a beer - and this is all Greek to me.
I'd prefer that you follow the words, for now. You can
await diminution of beer effects (or switch to some good
Assam or Keemun tea!). I still sense more of laziness in
this than true difficulty (in general, of many folks, i.e.).
(I'm much resistant to trying to conform to cell-phone,
sound-bite language-ing!! <grrrrRRRRR>
)
Think of the reward at the end of following the words
--a "new" knot!!
(But I do have now 2 working cameras, since Sept's
demise of a prior one.)
.
Also found this article on 'Hunters Bend' in KM #25 Go here to download it: http://www.grumpyogre.com/dumpextras/othermags/IGKT/KM25.pdf
Dan gets a plug in it. Go to page 9 for content on 'Shunting' (dont know why
Phil D Smith Riggers bend moniker was ignored...perhaps unknown to them at that time?).
I can tell why
I reject Phil's name : it's bogus,
in implication (otherwise, all of those riggers, and the
rest of us courtesy their knowledge, would have known
about the knot! (Eh, I know some commercial-fishing
knots not yet found by me in popular literature, though.)
Which of course echoes your point re "zeppelin", to be sure.
(Whereas
"Ashley's (#1452) bend" is a simple, occurrence-citing
name; factual but hardly illuminating.)
Re the version of
SmitHunter's (<--yeah, my playing of
word-fusion of matching ending/starting letters ("h"),
to credit two of 3 known "inventor's"/"discoverers" (I'm 3rd
in chronology to them, and who knows who else ...?) ),
...
from Smith's topmost diagram of the knot, get the improved
version (better resisting jamming, if not also stronger)
by taking one (either) tail OVER the other en route to its
tucking through the central nipping zone and then finally
out UNDER (giving reciprocal "over" to opp. tail).
What this does is stuff tail material into the collaring bight
which prevents that from so tightly gripping the S.Part
and jamming --by significant degree, at least.
--dl*
====
