Extracted text
Blodgett’s Visual-Line Objection Revisited
A correspondent brings forward Samuel Blodgett’s objection that the paper had claimed vision curved upward at thirteen inches per mile while using a telescopic visual line for the final 1.75 miles of the Florida survey. The question is direct: if that visual curvature applied, how could the projected line meet the Gulf where a straight line would have ended?
The reply says the visual line did not meet the water at precisely the same point as a straight continuation. It distinguishes the mechanically surveyed 2.375-mile land line from the visual continuation, gives a claimed endpoint a little over 4.125 miles from the start, and invokes telescope focus, tide level, a curvature ratio, and a measured angle at the final station.
This is one of the most technically specific printed replies in the sequence. It is also an admission of a crucial procedural distinction: the final water extension was not simply the same thing as the land-line measurement. The numbers, assumptions, diagram, and sightline geometry need to be evaluated together against the eventual book and original field records.
Close source-led summary from “Query, Chat, and News Department: Blodgett’s Criticism that We Did Not Dare Answer,” PDF pp. 11–12. Numerical and methodological claims remain attributed to the paper.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 12, No. 46 · Sep 1898 · PDF pp. 11–12