Jim,
My theory doesn't depend on the approximate road being the working boundary....my theory is that the approximate road WAS the working boundary! Yes, that is the point. It's 100% dependent on a document we have, too. No one else can say that.
Now, I will admit that mine is a guess or a theory because, barring seance, no one alive then can come back and tell us what really happened. Such is the nature of research into history. At least we aren't looking at fossils and relying on carbon dating!
That said, is it better to rely on what we have, or to rely on something we don't have? To explain the evidence that is out there or require some non-existant evidence to make our point? Obviously, not everyone in this discussion wants to come to a consensus. If we were intersested in a consensus, I think most would say (perhaps grudgingly) that my theory is the best one to build that consensus on at least as it relates to the boundary.
If Pat M wants to say "just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean its not true" or you want to keep all options open until further notice rather than try to move to closure, then Mike and I are pissing in the wind.
Of course, its your right, and its presumptuous of us to think others want closure just because we do, so the debate continues, even absent anyone providing anything more concrete, other than they don't agree.
Mike,
I'm really addressing this to you, since you are trying to draw closure based on Jeff's theory (and, God knows Jeff doesn't want any more frustrating nitpicking)
So, let me try to state Jeff's theory in a way that makes sense to me about what he and you are trying to say. The quotes are Jeff's.
1) "Actually, my little piece of the puzzle probably isn't all that signifgant anyway. All I did was posit that there was no interim boundary line of 117 acres. The fact that there is no legal deed of such, which would surely be recorded in the plat office is one indication. The math is a second."
2) "my theory is that the approximate road WAS the working boundary! Yes, that is the point. It's 100% dependent on a document we have, too."
3) "But, there is no evidence that there was some other boundary other than the Nov 15 Map."
4) "The way the acreages we KNOW work out, it almost had to be that the Nov 10 plan was the working western boundary. There is nothing in the documentation, other than the amount of acres they agreed to buy from HDC (117, but never delineated until the final deed in July 1911) and the deed that says they did buy 120.01."
5) "Using our various measurements my theory is a very likely explanation or how 117 became 120 because the acreages do work out using the November plan and the final alignments and deed."
6) "I get 2.57 and 0.7 acres to MCC on that drawing, after measuring a little more carefully.
I get 0.675 up north to HDC and 4.775 near the clubhouse to HDC.
Actually, these last few drawings sort of confirm my theory IMHO, providing Bryan's "just over122" acre originally delineated road is correct:
Original MCC delineated acres - 122.3
New Road (As Built)
To HDC 4.775 + 0.675 = 5.45
To MCC 2.57 + 0.699 = 3.26
122.3 - 5.45 + 3.26 = 120.1 acres"
From this I understand that you wish to conclude that these were the swaps, and that Jeff wants to rest on this being the likeliest swapping based on the available information.
From this I understand that you want to conclude that a literal acceptance of Francis' description of the swap is not possible, and that what he really meant was that the dimensions of 130 x 190 mean the final dimensions after the multiple swaps were effected as shown on Jeff's map.
And, you want to conclude that the swaps had to therefore have happened some time between the Nov. 15, 1910 map and the July 26, 1911 deed.
Is that a fair summary?
I would dispute the first hypothesis, that there was no interim boundary for the 117 acres. There is no evidence that there wasn't. In fact, in the back posts, Tom stated that there were metes and bounds for the 117 acres.
Point 2 is debatable. It gives ascendancy to the "approximate" road boundary on the land plan, (which doesn't measure 117 acres), over the MCC stated and publicly reported securing of 117 acres. It's a matter of convenience for your theory, because you don't have the 117 acre boundary, or even know that one never existed. It's logic, but I believe, fallacious logic.
Re point 3, there is equally no evidence that there wasn't. Sorry for the double negative, but when you're trying to accept one conjecture, I think you have to acknowledge the alternative, double negative or not.
Point 4 is flawed logic. You have three numbers, 117, 120 and 122. You have boundaries for the 122 and the 120, but not the 117, so you've decided to use the two for which you have boundaries, and then claim that "The way the acreages we KNOW work out, it almost had to be that the Nov 10 plan was the working western boundary." That is circular logic at its worst. How could they not work out? You start with 122 acres inside the approximate road and go to 120 acres inside the as-built GHR. It is axiomatic that the "gives" and "takes" are going to add up to 2 acres. So, I don't get how that proves that the approximate road was the working western boundary. All it proves is that the approximate road defines an area that is two acres larger than the deeded 120 acres of July 26, 1991 that is defined by GHR.
Re point 5, how could the measurements in the diagram or in the text following, prove that the "theory is a very likely explanation or how 117 became 120". You have never used any measurements for the 117 acres, because nobody currently has those measurements. The only thing your measurements show is the gives and takes between an approximate road and the as-built GHR.
So, based on what I think are assumptions and false logic, I can certainly not come to the conclusions that you do, Mike. Jeff is saying that these are the most likely swaps based on the 122 acre land plan being the working boundary, even though it flies in the face of the other factual information that we have, the dimensions written by Francis.
To me, in the neutral corner, I'd say that the book is still open, despite your attempts to close it. Let's try to discover more facts that allow us to come up with a unifying theory that accommodates all the "facts" or that disproves some of the currently known facts.
Now, off to figure out the 13 acre article.