|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Bill (no email)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2006 - 23:08:42 EDT
George wrote:
> As I said in the earlier mailing, "it seems that he falsified the position of
> the light so as to make a more dramatic story out of the first "Sumner line".
First, thank you George for your efforts in debunking "migrating
lighthouses" and being willing to remain objective despite your original
opinions.
I have to agree with George. The recounting given by Sumner (which I still
find ambiguous ;-) causes one to solve a puzzle. True position as later
determined, offset from DR longitude and latitude by time site, and no
mention of his assumed position of Small's.
Additionally, no exact time or Ho in his recounting. The only way to link
everything together is the first example. Which I am not clear Sumner states
were the readings of his time site. To further muddy the waters he used
degrees in his example instead of the 10' stated in his recounting. I
suspect this to be planned ambiguity by an educated man who knew better.
All said and done, yes he did publish inroads on celestial LOP's, but both
his and the Bowditch accounts sully the scientific method with their
diagrams. A "TV dramatization" for marketing purposes?
While you are on the scent George, did the Tasker/Tusker lighthouse actually
relocate, or is this another case of revised position due to measurement?
Thanks again
Bill
|