4. 
of height differences on the adjusted X,Y, and Z coordinates. Let me emphasize 
that all geodetic points were used in the adjustment, so that the adjustment curve 
of true best fit was obtained for each triangulation. The standard residual errors 
for the triangulations are listed in Table 1. 
Table 1 
Standard Errors of Triangulation Points After Adjustment 
m x 
my 
m z 
Triangulation 1, 36 models 
±2.6 m. 
±2.7 m. 
±2.8 m. 
h 2 m m 
1.8 
1.9 
CO 
3, " " , aerial levelling 
2.1 
2.1 
to 
00 
" 4, 9 
1.3 
1.5 
00 
rH 
" 5, " 
1.1 
1.3 
1.5 
Analytical triangulation, 30 models 
2.8 
3.1 
6.4 
Fictitious triangulation 2, 36 models 
1.7 
1.9 
00 
CO 
The poor results of the analytical triangulation are a direct consequence of using 
weak configurations of relative orientation points. 
Figure 8 shows the individual residual errors for fictitious and actual triangu 
lation 2. Note that there are no "breaks" in the residual errors. None of the 
other triangulations showed any breaks. This was unfortunate, as I had planned 
to examine the effect of orientation errors in producing these breaks. 
In Figure 8, remember that the fictitious triangulation 2 contains only errors 
made in the orientation elements. The actual triangulation 2 has all the error 
causes found in aerial triangulation, except film shrinkage. Yet the two sets of 
residuals show a very close resemblance. This indicates the great importance of 
orientation errors on the final residual coordinate errors of a triangulation. 
Conclusions - This empirical study leads to several conclusions. I realize that 
work with one strip of photographs on one particular instrument is rather limited 
grounds for definite conclusions. I would like to see this sort of study performed 
by others with other instruments and photography so that results can be compared. 
This empirical study indicates that: 
1. Successive orientation element errors fluctuate greatly, and do not 
propagate smoothly from photograph to photograph ; 
2. There is a great similarity in the pattern of these consecutive fluctu 
ations for several triangulations of the same strip, even when the triangulations 
are performed by different methods and using different points for orientation; 
3. The orientation errors are correlated so that the strip coordinate errors 
of triangulation points propagate much more smoothly than the errors of orientation. 
This is well known. However, the strip coordinates still deviate slightly from 
third degree polynomials. It appears that the deviations caused only by orienta 
tion errors are very similar in value and strip location to the residual errors from 
all causes. This indicates that orientation errors are the single most important 
aause of the residual errors of points determined by aerial strip triangulation , 
at least when using glass plate photography. 
The extensive analytical work performed in this research was all performed 
with the Control Data 160A digital computer of the Arecibo Ionospheric Observa 
tory, operated by Cornell University under contract to the United States Air 
Force Office of Scientific Research.