I am pleased to see that, in light of my critical evaluation, Arne B. Molander has reevaluated a number of points in his analysis, and has revised his proposals of Columbus's alleged use of the Moon for determining his longitude. However, it is disappointing that these latest proposals again do not seem to have been thoroughly considered.

Since it is clear that Columbus's East–West position fixes are not correlated with visible lunar-planetary conjunctions, Mr Molander's latest hypothesis is that Columbus observed a dark-horizon moonrise or moonset near each conjunction – which usually can be done whether or not the conjunction itself is visible. However, it is entirely unclear how such an observation can be converted into a longitude. Reading attentively, we can glean a few details of this process: only a single observation is required, since some positions are computed within a few hours of the purported observation; and Columbus apparently used the Ephemerides of Johann Miiller, since errors in that ephemeris are alleged to have caused errors in the computed longitude. In his 1992 paper, Mr Molander asserted that timing of the conjunction is not required by this method, because Columbus somehow utilizes the Moon's daily topocentric motion. But how this datum is utilized, and in fact all details of the longitude determination itself, are entirely obscure.

On 14 September 1494, Christopher Columbus observed a lunar eclipse while at the island of Saona near the eastern tip of Hispaniola. He later recorded in his Libro de las Profecias that, from his timing of the eclipse, he determined his longitude to be ‘five hours and more than one half’west of Cape San Vicente. His actual longitude was three hours and 59 minutes west of Cape San Vicente, so Columbus was off by over an hour and a half, some 23 degrees of longitude.