International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: 75RR on June 26, 2013, 05:03:29 PM

Title: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: 75RR on June 26, 2013, 05:03:29 PM
.
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Festy on June 26, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
Has this been accepted as being true up until recently, by every knotting 'aficionado'?
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 26, 2013, 07:31:31 PM
Found this on the Zeppelin page of Animated Knots by Grog while looking for alternate names to knots.

Pity, I liked the idea of tying down a Zeppelin should I ever come across one!
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:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.msg21941#msg21941
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 26, 2013, 08:33:45 PM
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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 27, 2013, 01:38:23 AM
I guess I have to take these one by one ::)

Quote
(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.

Quote
(2) in later life Rosendahl claimed ignorance of the knot
B.S.  As shown in the other thread (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.30), this is based on multiple layers of unverifiable hearsay.

Quote
(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 (http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/zeppelin-knot-zmaz80jfzraw.aspx#axzz2XLitgA8w):
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: alpineer on June 27, 2013, 02:14:39 AM
So, your stance is nothing proven on both sides of the argument then? None of this ballyhoo effects affects the performance of the knot.
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 27, 2013, 03:43:38 AM
I guess I have to take these one by one ::)

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!

Quote
Quote
(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.
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.

Quote
Quote
(2) in later life Rosendahl claimed ignorance of the knot
B.S.  As shown in the other thread (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.30), this is based on multiple layers of unverifiable hearsay.
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).

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.


Quote
From Joe Collins (http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/zeppelin-knot-zmaz80jfzraw.aspx#axzz2XLitgA8w):
Quote
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.

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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 27, 2013, 03:50:33 AM
So, your stance is nothing proven on both sides of the argument then?
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 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.msg21966#msg21966) in the right time frame.

Quote
None of this ballyhoo effects the performance of the knot.
Agreed.

Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 27, 2013, 04:07:13 AM
Right, "on the many ropes of a blimp" --such as ... ?
Here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/6qzqe4m
http://tinyurl.com/7g3hjtp
http://tinyurl.com/75weqr5


Quote
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.


Quote
The same magazine's editor at the time of that article
conveys hearing from Rosendahl

Where'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.
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 27, 2013, 07:05:32 PM
Quote
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.
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.)

Quote
Quote
The same magazine's editor [Boating] at the time of that article
conveys hearing from Rosendahl

Where'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.
???
Where's Joe Collins --oops ... ?!

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.

Quote
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.
Boating 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:
1) further confirmation re "Joe Collins" (though Roo has found some);
2) finding whatever military documentation remains about
zeppelin ropework;
3) learning anything further from those folks who take particular
fancy in either zeppelins or military history;
4) reaching Boating for possible reach into their archives
to find the alleged Rosendahl-to-Payne letter.
5) anything similar re Wingfoot --if not authors/editors,
readers?


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 27, 2013, 07:43:30 PM
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...
Actually, many very real things get lost to history (including whole languages).  Here's one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism


Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 28, 2013, 05:43:44 PM
Quote
Where's Joe Collins --oops ... ?!
Where's Rosendahl?
???  You can't be serious : R. is well documented; JC hardly so.
This is not even a debatable similarity.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!).

Quote
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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 28, 2013, 07:46:35 PM

???  You can't be serious : R. is well documented; JC hardly so.
This is not even a debatable similarity.
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.

Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.

Quote
We have a magazine's hearsay that there was a Joe
Collins
Not hearsay.  It was a first-person interview.  Both brothers contributed to the article (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), remember?

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 29, 2013, 03:53:21 PM
4) reaching Boating for possible reach into their archives
to find the alleged Rosendahl-to-Payne letter.

I contacted Boating, and got this reply from their editor-in-chief:

Quote
Regrettably, our archives were lost during a move some years back. I wish I could help, but cannot.
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 30, 2013, 06:20:01 AM

???  You can't be serious : R. is well documented; JC hardly so.
This is not even a debatable similarity.
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.
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.   :-[

Quote
Quote
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.
I concur but only in degree --so, not "very" but
possibly; there is still merit to assessing each link's
credibility (like assigning probabilities).
 
Quote
Quote
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.
We have : Boating asserting <Collins says ...>;
Wingfoot asserting <Lee Payne says ...>.  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.

Quote
Quote
We have a magazine's hearsay that there was a Joe
Collins
Not hearsay.  It was a first-person interview.  Both brothers contributed to the article (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), remember?
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) current status of Joe Collins (and we can find
some information on the (USS) President Madison).

Quote
Quote
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.
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 ...
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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, ...
: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!).

Quote
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 document", too!
A magazine article doesn't count so much as that;
so, I look to navy records as a hope.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: roo on June 30, 2013, 07:57:49 AM
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)!?
Collins said, "It could be untied in a hurry, even after a sudden surge (http://books.google.com/books?id=yW-2GoXscmgC&pg=RA2-PA87&dq=rosendahl+collins&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6c3PUbjaLI_nigLbgYHQCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rosendahl%20collins&f=false)".  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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=q98DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=blimp+grounding+lines+tied&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Uw4jT4rmF6XfiAKYhLDUBw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=blimp%20grounding%20lines%20tied&f=false), 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.


Quote
Quote
What if the letter was from a relative of Rosendahl, ...
And this person would bother to write because ... ??!
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?
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 30, 2013, 05:09:08 PM
It could be untied in a hurry, even after a sudden surge[/url]".  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.
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.

Quote
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 some sort
of bending line-to-line with the use of a rolling hitch.

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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 04, 2013, 07:04:28 PM
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:

1) In 1976 Boating presented the knot in an article.

2) 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 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685)
--to wit:
Quote
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend 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.

3) 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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 05, 2013, 07:45:02 AM
Ran across this article on Charles Rosendahl that states he stood watch as a ship's officer on the Graf Zeppelin.
Could that be the origin of the knot?

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*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 10, 2013, 06:17:43 PM
Why?  We know his history, intimate w/zeppelins, yes;
so what does this article bring new to our consideration?
I was merely speculating on possible scenarios that would fit what we know.
 
Is it possible for Rosendhal to not remember the knot and yet have "invented" it? I do not think so.
Is it possible for Rosendhal to not remember the knot and yet have ordered its use? I think that is possible.

One should remember that R was on the Graf Zeppelin to learn all he could about Airships and how to run them.
He probably had long lists of things he had picked up that he wanted instituted on his ship. On the day he ordered the use of the knot, he also probably mentioned ten other things that he had picked up from the Graf Zeppelin.

It would be natural that the name used for the knot would be where it came from rather than an unpronounceable German polysyllabic mouthful.
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.

Quote
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!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 11, 2013, 06:48:44 AM
how knotting instruction --esp. of some novel, otherwise-unknown specially needed / important knot-- could be done without images in knotting documentation!

I would rather think of it as a good knot remembered
due not only to the novelty (to a seaman presumably well versed in knots)
of learning a new knot, but also due to the link to USS Akron.

According to airships.net:

"No flight or operations manual exists for the Hindenburg or the Graf Zeppelin,
... and all training was done by the apprentice method."


The same could well be true of the USS Akron during its experimental/shakedown stage.
I also think that it might be safely assumed that seamen have
for many centuries learned knots without the aid of drawings.

Good argument!  Yes, seamen have done so w/o looks
into books --which might be noted in that there are
the cases of books not getting it right, anyway!
Richard Henry Dana authored The Seaman's Friend
but that came well subsequent to his own learning.
(I think it fair, though, to suggest that there could be
enough variance in seamen's competence to warrant
some instruction set down for reference.)

The suggested absence of documentation doesn't
thrill one with hopeful expectation, does it?!    :(   ???   :'(


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: SS369 on July 12, 2013, 03:28:59 AM
Here is a link to a Flickr page that has the largest photo collection of airships that I have come across. The pictures range from about 1902 to the present. Some wild and interesting photographs of these contraptions.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/airship/pool/ (http://www.flickr.com/groups/airship/pool/)

Now there are an amazing amount of pictures (2857 items, whew!!) to view and I have looked at all my eyes can stand in one setting, but I hope other eyes will continue to search for the elusive Zep/R bend.

What I have glanced at seems to be mainly many lines to one joins or long enough tethers. Some eye and toggle joins and some unclear knots. So far none that have the distinctive right angle tails look.
If one uses Control key and hits the + key over amongst the numerals cluster (- key adjusts it back) it will magnify the page.

Hope someone finds something!

SS

P.S. Does it not seem a bit strange that this particular knot shows up nowhere in any vintage seagoing/rigging manual?
Title: Re: Not another Urban Myth
Post by: X1 on July 12, 2013, 01:35:50 PM
Does it not seem a bit strange that this particular knot shows up nowhere in any vintage seagoing/rigging manual?
   No, not at all. Things have been looming just under our noses for hundreds, or even thousands of years, although, in principle, they should have been obvious to anybody from the time of the invention of dirt - just remember the Sandwich, or the steam engine. The Zeppelin bend is just like this. However, if one looks closer, he can "see" the reasons that had postponed its discovery for so long : It is the only bend where the standing part s first curve of the one link is not 'hooked" around the standing part of the other link, as it would have been "natural" to expect for a bend - but only around the pair of tails, that work as the pivots of a rope-made hinge. Big, huge difference !
   Ancient Egyptians were building pyramids for 1700 years before somebody told them that they can measure how tall those man-made mountains are by measuring the length of their shadow on the sand... Ancient people all over the globe were building ships for thousands of years before somebody, in his Eureka moment, told them that " the upward buoyant force exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces , so " Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object". Elementary, my dear Archimedes !  :)
   The Zeppelin bend should have been a tricky bend to discover in the first place - and it is still a much more complex knot to understand than to tie !  :)  Its deceiving formal simplicity, which conceals its structural Eureka moment, is what makes its so late discovery seem a bit strange. The fact that it was not invented before, say 1765 ( Watt s steam engine ), is it a strange thing ? When exactly its discovery should have been taken place, in order to seem "natural" to us ? And who can bet that an ancient Egyptian or Heraklas, had not tied it 4000 or 2000 years ago ? When one looks at the Megalithic Temples of Malta, the Stonehenge, the Pyramids, or the Pantheon, and at a Zeppelin bend, which would seem a more complex thing to him ?  :)
   
   Imagine that the Zeppelin bend was not known today - as it was not known until some point in human history - was this point the time of Heraklas, of Graf Zeppelin, of Rosenthal or of Ashley. It would nt be such an obvious knot to consider, that is for sure. That tells me that there may be yet other still unknown knots, which, AFTER their discovery, would also seem "simple" to us as the Zeppelin bend does NOW , and their late discovery would also seem "a bit strange" -  but they are still untied and untried, perhaps because they, too, are based on a yet another novel and unexpectedly effective knotting principle, as the rope - made hinge was.
   
   Archimedes text s" On Floating Bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Floating_Bodies)" , The Method of Mechanical Theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Method_of_Mechanical_Theorems)"  and Stomachion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomachion)" were  discovered in 1906, 2150 years after they were written !  (1) Who knows when the first text or picture of the Zeppelin bend will be unearthed - but, most probably, my life s line would not remain "over" the earth for so long !    :)
 
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest)