C00015284
 Professor J. Allen NMk
 Graduate So3as1
 The Ohio State Qalvezstty
 Cone... 10, Ohio
 boar Profeesor Byneks
 Thank ye vary rmah lp as3for sour letter of 23 December
 ooatY^iu thse: eetscaniaal calculatioa4 tranendtted earlier by
 tele one.. Ne ore in egrcetint. with your fiadiage sad appreciate
 your =ssistrnce in tfiia tit .er.
 It was a pleasure t rcnev oi.r ae dai2tence at Dayton and to
 lcezn o_ your cgesiltozt t=.k. I.hope that ve shall see you again
 in tta not too diatazt
 With best vishos fo=the cog year,
 C00015284
 Dr. H. M. Chadwell
 Apt. 1217
 2800 Quebec Street, N. W.
 -Washington 8, D. C.
 December 23, 1992
 In pursuance of our telephone conversation of the other
 day, and in accordance with your request, I am confirming In
 writing the results I transmitted to?you,over the phone.
 It is well known that in theodolite observations, elevations
 can be generally obteined more accurately than the azimuths since
 the former depend      :'r accurate leveling but the, latter depend
 upon a determinati_':-_1 the truL north.  Since most theodolite
 observers are interested in relative rates and not in absolute
 positions, it is no surprise that they do not pay too much atten-
 tion to the exact dete:ninaticn of their zero points.  Further,
 it is quite easy for even 'an observer of some experience to make
 an error in reading of some multiple of whole degrees.  The
 observation made at Limestone, therefore, can very well be assumed
 to have both a zero point error and an incorrect scale reading.
 At the mean time of observation, calculations made at the
 observatory here show that Jupiter had, at Presque Isle, an
 azimuth of 163? and an elevation of 58.50.  This alone is f suf-
 S-Uiently_close to the mean of the readings from two stations to
 serve as' strong  vide, ?t that the object.observec was Jupiter.
 However, the clinching agrument comes when one compares Jupiter's
 rate.of..motion in elevation and azimuth during the observation
 and the rates noted on the theodolite, at Presque Isle.  The com-
 puted increment in elevation was 0.2 degrees (as compared to the
 observed 0.3 degrees) and the corresponding increment in azimuth
 was 1.8 degrees (as against the observed 1.9 degrees):  in view
 of this strikingly close agreement in rates as well as general
 position in the sky, it would be an outrage to probability theory
 to consider that the object observed was anything other. than the
 ;:.;e-honored p3a.net Jupiter.  The?prosecution rests its case;
 Wishing you the very best greetings of the season, I remain.
 Sincerely Yours*,
 JAH/n
 0
 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
 Nsu. L I"* IMF
 COLUMBUS 10
 J. Allen HYnck
 Assistant Dean ant
 Professor of Aatr%M-:t