NavList:

   

Reply

Frank,

What I gathered from the messages was that you interpreted Slocum's
statements about problems with the tables as _Slocum_ having problems
with the tables rather than there being an actual error in the printed
tables.  Is this not correct?  I conclude from this that you are
inferring Slocum was fibbing?  Is there another interpretation?  Please
note that I did not use the word "lying."

Slocum refers to lunars three times.  The first at the top of the long
excerpt that discusses the faulty tables.  Then later in that excerpt
where the specific lunar is mentioned.  Finally, he mentions discussing
them with the Astronomer Royal in Capetown.  There is specific
documentation for but that one lunar, as you have pointed out.  (It
also appears he took about 4-6 noon shots of the sun while
circumnavigating the earth :)

Fred

On Dec 18, 2003, at 8:08 PM, Frank Reed wrote:

> Fred Hebard, you wrote:
> "I collected these quotations to assist people in evaluating Frank
> Reed's
> hypothesis that Slocum took only one lunar, and that he is fibbing when
> he says he corrected a table used for clearing a lunar sight."
>
> Fred, please do NOT misrepresent what I have said. I have never, never
> suggested that Slocum was "fibbing". Do you honestly NOT understand
> what I am talking about?
>
> As for the list of quotations, I'll take a look later. I gather though
> you found no other specific evidence of longitude by lunars beside
> that one instance?
>
> Frank E. Reed
> [X] Mystic, Connecticut
> [ ] Chicago, Illinois

   

Reply