"Tom,
I remain interested and neutral, and I for one would like you to show us why it isn't, regardless of how David responds. You've alluded to this a number of times. Could you stop alluding and just describe what you think/know? I'm listening with my mind open."
Bryan:
Sure I will, particularly since David Moriarty just said he isn't interested in doing this with me and having a discussion about it as we go through it step by step. I wish he would do it with us, though, because he just said he has that Pennsylvania Railroad map plate and he could put it on here for us. I have no idea who else has it. Wayne has it and I have it because we've shared all our architecture stuff for years on practically everything through Foldershare and otherwise. I'm very sorry to tell you, though, that I don't even know how to put stuff like that on here because you can see I never have in over 30,000 posts.
But I will tell you about it all.
First of all, you can see the Nov. 15, 1910 plan because it's on David Moriarty's essay. As I think you yourself noticed it has a scale on the bottom of it so anything on the map can be measured. Measuring that triangle off that plan's scale anyone can see it's bit less than 100 yards at the base by about 260 yards.
The triangle on the 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map plate also has a scale on the bottom! When you use that to measure the the triangle AFTER the holes AND the road were built IT measures just about 130X190 the very measurement Francis described in his 1950 story. The holes even appear in "stick" form on that 1913 railroad map.
Also by putting the two maps side by side one really can see how that road configuration was pretty dramatically changed from the "approximation" (before it was built) all the way from the top of it at College Avenue to the bottom of it at Ardmore Ave, AFTER it was built (I believe Club House Road was actually built in 1912), so the way it shows up on that railroad map is "as built".
I also drove it again the other day and it swings west at the top above the 15th green about 30+ yards down to the 14th green and then back east about a like amount or more to below the 14th tee pretty dramatically compared to that "approximate road location" on the November 15, 1910 map.
About a month ago it just sort of intuitively hit me how different the actual road is compared to the configuration on that 1910 map. I had to look at the road on that 1910 map for a while before it hit me the road wasn't built like that not to mention I've driven it so much. It just didn't occur to me for a while that the "approximate" road on that 1910 doesn't swing much at all making it too narrow at the top to fit a green and a tee into.
And then just a day or so ago I noticed the Railroad map has a scale on the bottom of it too and using that it all works out between the two dimensionally just as I thought it did.
I would like to say something about what the meeting minutes from April 1911 say about this land swap but I better not do that anymore because I just got slammed again by David Moriarty for putting snippets and summaries on here without backing them up with the trancripts and as I've said about a dozen times we can't put those on here before permission is given.
So, we can just use these two maps to make a comparison because David Moriarty already used the 1910 map in his piece and the Pennsylvania Railroad map has nothing to do with Merion's or MCC's archive material. The RR map is public record.
And there's something else to consider as of recently.
David Moriarty just mentioned that he had that 1913 railroad map when he researched and wrote his essay. I wonder why he didn't measure it to see the triangle in it is 130X190 while the triangle in the 1910 map is a bit less than 100X260. Maybe he never even noticed that both maps have scales and so maybe he never measured the dimensions of the earlier triangle against the later one.
Had he done that he probably never would've tried to place both Francis out there before his committee was appointed and probably never would've tried to place the date of his land swap idea back about six months BEFORE it actually happened!
So, I don't know what he'll say about this. If I were him I think I'd just concede that his assumption to place Francis and this land swap event back in 1910 at least six month before it happened wasn't a good one and concede his premise too and concede that it didn't happen in 1910 but in 1911.
I certainly hope this time he doesn't try to use the same rationale he did with Francis' story about the quarryman blowing the top of the hill off in two days that he must have been engaging in hyperbole and the same rationale he has with Alan Wilson that his report of the Merion creation wasn't accurate either because he was eulogizing his brother (not to mention that all the other members of Hugh Wilson's committee agreed with Alan Wilson's report because they ALL told him in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of the East and West course).
In other words, I sure hope this time David Moriarty doesn't try to convince anyone that these maps can't be accurate because the surveyors in both of them made mistakes.
I think there are only so many times when someone can try to convince others his theory has to be right despite all evidence to the contrary because everyone involved in that other evidence, even back then, had to be wrong somehow. Basically, that has always been the main problem with David Moriarty's essay with most people who really do know a lot about the history of Merion, something David Moriarty had said on here before he doesn't know that much about but would like to learn-----eg he just tried to convince too many people that too many things that are part of the record and history of Merion were wrong.
I knew trying to do something like that so many times eventually wouldn't work and the essay would begin to lose credibilty and I think the foregoing with the Francis story is just another example of that.