Author Topic: Not another Urban Myth  (Read 6692 times)

75RR

  • Guest
Not another Urban Myth
« on: June 26, 2013, 05:03:29 PM »
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 12:22:10 AM by 75RR »

Festy

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2013, 07:02:09 PM »
Has this been accepted as being true up until recently, by every knotting 'aficionado'?

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #2 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
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 07:34:41 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #3 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*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #4 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, 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:
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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 01:50:02 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #5 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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 11:27:50 AM by alpineer »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #6 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, 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:
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*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #7 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 in the right time frame.

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

If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #8 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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 04:07:56 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #9 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*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #10 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.


« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 03:37:30 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #11 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*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #12 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, 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!

« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 12:30:38 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #13 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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:56:18 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: Not another Urban Myth
« Reply #14 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, 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*
====