EDITOR’S FOREWORD 
I n preparing this record of the London Congress for publication I hope to have 
preserved something of the atmosphere of the congress as well as some matters 
of permanent historical and technical interest. It is of course inevitable that, in 
reducing to a reasonable compass the many words that were spoken, mistakes of fact 
or interpretation as well as errors of judgement shall have been made. My hope is 
that these are sufficiently few and insignificant to permit these Archives to be an 
acceptable and useful contribution to the work of the Society. 
My thanks are due to many whose cooperation has made their publication 
possible. First, to the interpreters of the spoken word, the Palantype stenographers, 
those who installed and operated the tape-recorders in the basement beneath the hall, 
those who monitored the proceedings and later edited the tapes, and those who 
transcribed their contents. Their tasks were considerable, demanding concentrated 
attention and long hours of work, often against a deadline. Many performed their 
tasks voluntarily. As Editor I can bear witness to how well they all did them and 
have good reason to be thankful. Then, to the Dean and his staff at the International 
Training Centre in Delft, and to Professor Roelofs, who between them have edited 
the technical discussions for me. And finally to Mr H. C. van der Hoek, of the Geodetic 
Institute of the Delft Technological University, who has scrutinized all the copy and the 
proofs, and whose meticulous care and great knowledge both of typographical presen 
tation and of what the words and symbols were all about, have made the printer’s 
task comparatively simple and mine extremely light. The publisher, too, I must thank 
for the great interest he has taken in the production of this record of the London 
Congress. 
My apologies are due to all those interested in the Archives for not having 
published them, as I had hoped to do, within six months of the congress. It is no excuse 
to say that we have never yet succeeded in publishing them within a year — and it has 
been known to take over three — nevertheless, could we publish them in a very much 
shorter time in future, say within a month or two of the congress, the effort might be 
well rewarded. It would enhance the general impact of the congress on a wide circle, 
extending beyond photogrammetrists, as well as the particular impact of the technical 
discussions upon more limited circles of experts. But to publish more quickly requires 
careful organisation in advance, heavy and sometimes costly work at the congress, and 
the cooperation of all who take part in or conduct the meetings. As present editor, 
I would gladly pass on to my successor any information he may wish to have, not 
only on what was planned and what achieved at the London Congress, but also on my 
own sins of omission and commission. I wish him good fortune.