Pine Valley and Topos

[JESII]

Pat,

It's been my contetion all along that the train would have revealed an impressive view across the swamp up into the hills and valleys that became the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th holes. Tom Macwood has now shown that the swamp was part of the orignal purchase and he picture show that it came right to the base of the track embankment. The pictures you asked me to look at are the exact ones I was looking at earlier when I asked how you could possible consider them to be 80 feet tall. Most are less than 20 with a few being as high as 40...a slim few!

I have a question for you. You're stating Shelly's account as gospel regarding the hunting trip discovery of the site. I think it's very possible he walked this area, general area or specific parcel, at times in his life. But recognizing its golf potential would surely require a wider angle lens, no? Either by viwing a topographical map...or by simply seeing its full scale revealed from a distance. The question is; if Shelly is to be taken as fool proof, where are these lakes and streams he references as being key to the later purchase?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Yes, swamps tend to have dying trees or no trees and you would be able to see in.  In reality, the swamp was probably created by the embankment builf for the railroad.  It either had no pipe to drain under the RR, or it got crushed or blocked.

RE-reading Perrin's account, even he said there were open sandy stretches when he and Crump visited the site.  Not sure why those would be potentially any more or less visible from a train.

The whole argument is a worthless excersise.  We shouldn't waste any more time debating this just because Patrick is in one of his argumentative moods and refusing to concede a point.  Even he wants to move on to the topo features and construction sequence, at least in theory!

[Dan Herrmann]

Fact is that Crump's design incorporates elevation changes extremely well at Pine Valley.   I'm interested to see where you guys go next.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

You ignorant sl*t!    

I do have to address one of your points about both Tillinghast and Perrin possibly aggrandizing their respective roles due to the success and plaudits rolling in to Pine Valley.

In the case of Tillinghast, he reported that Crump saw the site for golf from the train in three separate publications in January 1913.  At that very early stage, there were no plaudits, except perhaps from other of Crump's close friends, and that was only related to the desirability of the site, not anything that was actually built.   It is clear that Crump tapped him to tell/write the story and if anything was amiss in them I'm quite sure Crump would have corrected him and Tillinghast would have respected Crump's wishes....he certainly wouldn't write about it again in 1933 after Crump's death, which is what he did.

In the case of Perrin, he essentially put together the club and if memory serves was the first president.   There is no question that he knew of the site by 1912, and no question that he thought Crump hunted there, which he almost certainly did.

This whole ridiculous notion is simply due to the equally ridiculous notion that the two stories are mutually exclusive.

While Patrick trumpets Shelly, Shelly himself tells us the stories are NOT mutually exclusive.

Instead, he says;

"It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest, and perhaps only realized the rolling nature of its possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train.   In any case, he found a great location for the building of a golf course, no matter how."

Patrick's contentions about the mysteriously missing Train Station, the speed of the train, the size of the trees, etc. have all been effectively rebutted by virtually everyone here.   Those arguments, and a misplaying of Shelly's words (including an omission of what I transcribed above) have been his only supposed evidence that the two stories are mutually exclusive.

Tom MacWood outlined his case for the mutual exclusivity which I think Jim Sullivan rebutted quite accurately yesterday.

And, we had the train schedule that David Moriarty produced showing no station effectively answered by SPBD's train schedule showing everything from the Sumner station to the days/times of the runs.

So, unless everyone agrees with Patrick that a multi-hour run between Camden and Atlantic City would somehow mean it was dark at about 8am in Clementon back in the winter of 1910 , I think we'd all be better served to get off this off the rails discussion trained back on discussing the topos, as Tom MacWood has very nicely done in his last post.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

As to the train station at Sumner, the Ford article on grand opening that you posted in No. 26 has Perrin saying that he first saw the site when he and Crump ventured out by train to Sumner station.  No need for all the fancy word and train schedule parsing or logical analysis was really required on that one.  It's near the bottom of the first column.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

There are reports coming in of earthquake tremors on the east coast, ostensibly because Patrick Mucci is ready to admit that he's wrong on the train issue.

Or, perhaps he'll argue with Howard Perrin posthumously, as may one or two others.

But, something that shook the earth from DC to NYC HAD to be a clear sign of Patrick finally admitting he's wrong.    

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

p.s.  - Thanks for taking a closer look at that article.   Does this sound like a site that would be so choked thick with tall trees that it would not have been visually interesting from the tracks?   Even though he viewed this from the high point of the sixth fairway, it gives Perrin's eyewitness account of the character and features of the land and vegetation prior to construction.

"Perrin saw scrub oak and pines that rose and fell in uneven swells.   He saw stretches of sandy waste, a feeble, sluggish stream and marshland."  

Seriously, the earth just shook here, so I'm expecting Patrick to hold a news conference shortly to announce his big faux paus!  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood outlined his case for the mutual exclusivity which I think Jim Sullivan rebutted quite accurately yesterday.

He sure did. I particularly liked the way he ignored the fact that Crump was not playing golf in 1910 prior to selling the hotel, and the way he ignored Crump's 1912 letter. That seems to be common theme in Philadelphia, ignoring your favorite son who you are attempting protect.

[JESII]

Tom,

You suggested he settled on this site in 1912. There is no question on that is there? He made the purchase in October/November 1912. This is pretty indisputable evidence where I come from. The train story is only related to the discovery of the land...are discovery and purchase the same thing in your neck of the woods?

I didn't even almost ignore your "fact" that Crump didn't play golf in 1910...go look again.

[Sean_A]

Not sure why I am interjecting other than I find it a curious fact that Crump played no golf in 1910.  Was he injured or unable to play for some reason?  

Ciao

[JESII]

As a follow up to the 1910 issue that Tommy Mac has pulled out of his ear as a major point in this debate...who ever said 1910 was when Crump saw the land? I missed it an think you're making it up.


Sean,

Crump was working hard on selling his hotel that year and apparently he didn't play the handful of local club invitational tournaments that fall so TM figures he didn't know where his sticks were...

[Tom MacWood]

"Nearly three years ago George A. Crump, the well-known player, was on one of the Reading Railway trains bound for the seaside links. Glancing out of the window, he saw a tract of land which rivetted his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this mediately it occurred to him that the land would be ideal for a golf course. It is situated close by the railroad tracks, about 15 miles from Camden near Clemonton."  ~~ 1/12/1913 Phila Inq

1 - We know he went on a three month golf trip in 1910. We know he didn't play any of the local club events that year. Otherwise, you have no idea how much golf he played, none! You have absolutely no basis to make the claim #1.

Jim
Which is it? Was Tilly off the mark or are you arguing the articles that claimed Crump was away from the game in 1910 were wrong?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niether, of course. Tillie wrote in Jan 1913 that nearly 3 years ago Crump was on a train, which would be about Jan-Feb 1910, and in line with his typical winter golf trips.  Later, its reported that he has played no golf in the Philly (spring-fall) golf season of 1910.  Both are very likely true.

The definition of drought doesn't mean absolutely no rain, its much less than usual.  Look up "sexless marriage" and its not zero sex, its a maximum of a few times a year.  I could go on all day, but TMac's unreasonably literal interpretation is nonsense and shouldn't be considered as any kind of reasonable analysis.  I long for the good old days, like this morning, when TMac made reasonable posts!

[Tom MacWood]

Niether, of course. Tillie wrote in Jan 1913 that nearly 3 years ago Crump was on a train, which would be about Jan-Feb 1910, and in line with his typical winter golf trips.  Later, its reported that he has played no golf in the Philly (spring-fall) golf season of 1910.  Both are very likely true.

The definition of drought doesn't mean absolutely no rain, its much less than usual.  Look up "sexless marriage" and its not zero sex, its a maximum of a few times a year.  I could go on all day, but TMac's unreasonably literal interpretation is nonsense and shouldn't be considered as any kind of reasonable analysis.  I long for the good old days, like this morning, when TMac made reasonable posts!

I'll take you word for it regarding the definition of a sexless marriage...thankfully I've never had to look it up. And like I've always said if you are emotionally attached the train story, feel free. As myths go its a minor one. On the other hand when you are forced to twist, distort, and contort the English language in order to make your story work...

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

In that same article you're quoting, doesn't Tilly tell us he's known about Crump's plans for some time and only now has permission to divulge the information?

Do we really know when the major body of that article was actually written, as opposed to published?

Also, "nearly" a year is not the same as "almost" a year in that it could just as easily mean slightly more or less.

[Mike Cirba]

Actually, my definition of "nearly" is not nearly good enough.

However, with the amount of prolific writing Tilly did, I think we have to be careful not to confuse "written" date with "published" date, especially on a story Tilly has been sitting on for some time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Your interpretation is most likely far to strict.  There is a tendency in the human mind to think in black and white terms, and in most things, its really gray.  So, there is no twisting of the English language on my part.

As has been pointed out, while Crump didn't play in the Philly area golf events, it doesn't mean he didn't play at all, and the timing of the remarks means that he could have concievably stopped playing by Feb or March and still be construed as having missed the season.  Since it was a January article, potentiallyl penned in December, its possible that Crump was heading to AC on 12-31-09 and that is what Tillie wrote, if you want to be THAT literal.

So, the emotional investment in protecting a position is all yours, not ours.  We aren't going out of the way to discredit anyone on this thread, you are.

BTW, what are all those Philly golf myth that I as a Texas transplant from Chicago am defending?  You keep mentioning them, but one of these days, I suspect you will either have to list them (and what proof you have) or everyone else will be saying you are crying wolf.  It reeks of using the subtle, but factless put down to try to convince everyone you have a valid point.

As always, I could be wrong, but that's just how it reads on my computer screen.

[Mike Cirba]

In the words of Robert Plant, does anyone here rember topos? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the case of Tillinghast, he reported that Crump saw the site for golf from the train in three separate publications in January 1913.  At that very early stage, there were no plaudits, except perhaps from other of Crump's close friends, and that was only related to the desirability of the site, not anything that was actually built.   It is clear that Crump tapped him to tell/write the story and if anything was amiss in them I'm quite sure Crump would have corrected him and Tillinghast would have respected Crump's wishes....he certainly wouldn't write about it again in 1933 after Crump's death, which is what he did.

The probable scenario is that Crump was familiar with the land for years, if not decades, had re-scouted it for it's golf potential and after deciding it was the land with the most possibilities, mentioned or even pointed it out to AWT on a train from AC to Philly.

In the case of Perrin, he essentially put together the club and if memory serves was the first president.   There is no question that he knew of the site by 1912, and no question that he thought Crump hunted there, which he almost certainly did.

This whole ridiculous notion is simply due to the equally ridiculous notion that the two stories are mutually exclusive.

While Patrick trumpets Shelly, Shelly himself tells us the stories are NOT mutually exclusive.

Instead, he says;

"It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest, and perhaps only realized the rolling nature of its possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train.   In any case, he found a great location for the building of a golf course, no matter how."

"it could be that" was pure speculation.
In the sentences earlier Shelly states that the train story is bogus, that Crump knew of the site previously, from hunting there.
In addition, Crump lived right down the road from PV, growing up in Merchantville.

Patrick's contentions about the mysteriously missing Train Station, the speed of the train, the size of the trees, etc. have all been effectively rebutted by virtually everyone here.  

That's a lie and you know it.
When will you start telling the truth ?
Are you capable of telling the truth ?

Those arguments, and a misplaying of Shelly's words (including an omission of what I transcribed above) have been his only supposed evidence that the two stories are mutually exclusive.

I've come to the conclusion that you're dishonest.
I never misplayed Shelly's words, I quoted the factual statement he made, refuting the train story.
You want to rely on his speculative statement, I prefer reliance on his factual statement.
And, the two are mutually exclusive.
He was either familiar with the land previously, or first discovered it while on the train.
Which is it ?

Tom MacWood outlined his case for the mutual exclusivity which I think Jim Sullivan rebutted quite accurately yesterday.

And, we had the train schedule that David Moriarty produced showing no station effectively answered by SPBD's train schedule showing everything from the Sumner station to the days/times of the runs.

Yes, and ONLY ONE train ran from Philly to AC - AC to Philly that would stop at Sumner during daylight hours on the Sat morning, Sunday afternoon trips.  None of the express trains, which they would be taking, stopped there.  And, on the way home in the afternnon, it was pitch black in Jan/Feb when the train passed Sumner, so tell me how much they could see.

So, unless everyone agrees with Patrick that a multi-hour run between Camden and Atlantic City would somehow mean it was dark at about 8am in Clementon back in the winter of 1910 ,

Mike, this is where you get yourself in trouble with me.
The above statement is a total lie, a wise guy misrepresentation of what I've stated.
I indicated that the 7:30 am train, the one that takes 2 hours and 40 minutes, if it's on time, stopped at Sumner.
And that they wouldn't be on that train since another train leaves an hour and a half later and only gets in 15 minutes later, making far fewer stops.

I think we'd all be better served to get off this off the rails discussion trained back on discussing the topos, as Tom MacWood has very nicely done in his last post.

YOU want to get off the rail story because there was only one train that stopped in Sumner during daylight hours in Jan/Feb.
On the afternoon trains on the return trip from AC to Philly it was pitch black when they passed Sumner, so they couldn't have seen anything.

That leaves the Express train departing Philly at 9:00 am as the only real choice, and we know that that train was doing 60-75 mph when whizzing by PV.

Shelly clearly debunked the train story, I've just added some supporting information to the refutation process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It's been my contetion all along that the train would have revealed an impressive view across the swamp up into the hills and valleys that became the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th holes.

Then you're not familiar with the topography of that area.

There's a ridge that rises up from the left side of # 17 tee, where carts are parked to service the 16th green, all the way up to the 17th green/ 11th tee, that prevents views to the south due to the elevation of that ridge, thus, you can't see # 16 fairway from the tracks.

The trees between # 16 fairway and # 15 fairway prevent any view of the 15th fairway.

The 14th tee is invisible from the tracks as it's a good 50 feet above them.

The area of the 14th green, 15th tee and 16th green was a swamp/bog, so how attractive was that view in terms of locating golf holes.
The fact that those holes weren't completed for play until about 1919 tells you that he certainly did NOT see golf holes in that area, otherwise they would have been amongst the first selected.  Remember, you and the cretins thought that location presented the best view of good holes for golf, when the truth is, that was the worst area for holes for golf.


Tom Macwood has now shown that the swamp was part of the orignal purchase and he picture show that it came right to the base of the track embankment. The pictures you asked me to look at are the exact ones I was looking at earlier when I asked how you could possible consider them to be 80 feet tall. Most are less than 20 with a few being as high as 40...a slim few!

Jim, first, those are the post clearing photos.  The 1917 photo from the 18th tee shows trees 40-60 feet tall.
The photo of hole # 5 shows trees 40-60 feet tall, even the photo on # 2 tee shows trees well in excess of 20 feet.
But, the truth of the matter is that they don't have to be 40-60-80 feet tall, all they have to be is taller (elevation wise) than someone sitting in a railroad car, and the trees exceed that height, blocking anyone's view.

When you combine the elevation above the tracks with the trees above the tracks, you can't see a thing.

Tell me, today, on those tracks with the area to the right of # 17 tee cleared, how much can you see of # 16 fairway ?  # 15 fairway ?  # 14 tee ?

I have a question for you. You're stating Shelly's account as gospel regarding the hunting trip discovery of the site. I think it's very possible he walked this area, general area or specific parcel, at times in his life.

Don't forget, he lived most of his life just down the White Horse Pike from PV

But recognizing its golf potential would surely require a wider angle lens, no? Either by viwing a topographical map...or by simply seeing its full scale revealed from a distance.


My premise favors topos over visuals

The question is; if Shelly is to be taken as fool proof, where are these lakes and streams he references as being key to the later purchase?

Shelly never mentioned "streams"  I don't know where you got that from.
As to the lakes, my guess is that he might have been refering to the water to the right of #18, or some of the water on the northwestern portion of the property, near the 2nd and 3rd holes of the short course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why the obsession with proving what time it gets dark in NJ in winter? 

It's not an obsession, but, it's an important issue because the trains departing AC in the afternoon in Jan/Feb would get to PV/Sumner after dark, therefore, nothing was visible, so how could Crump point out the site to AWT when it was pitch black.

That leaves the two morning trains from Philly to AC, the 7:30 train, which takes 2 hours and 40 minutes, making about 40 stops, to make the trip, and the 9:00 train, an express train, which takes about one hour, 15 minutes.  That train traveled at 60-75 mph.  Pine Valley's land along the tracks was less than 4,000 feet, which means that at most Crump would have had 30-48 seconds to view the land, if he could see it through the trees.

We know how dense the trees were on the north side of the tracks, post clearing.
Simon Carr, a reliable source tells us that the land PV sat on was a dense forest with underbrush so thick it was a jungle.
Add to that, the rising elevations south of the tracks, and ...... there is no view, other than perhaps that of a swamp, which is hardly the land one would deem great for a golf course.

Crump could have used Sumner station as a landmark to describe a location.  At least we know now that it existed.  It doesn't mean that he was on a train that stopped there when he noticed the site from the train.

I agree, and have said so.  I believe that Crump and others used it as a point of reference.

What does it matter how much of the property he could see from the train?

That's a great question for the Captain of the Titanic to answer.
The simple answer is that you can't see much from the train due to elevation barriers, forest/vegetation barriers, the time of day and the speed of the train.  Those factors add up to strong support of Shelly's claim, that the train story was bogus.

He wasn't designing all the holes from the train.  He presumably only noticed it as a potential site with interesting topographical features. 
What features ?
The only thing visible might have been a swamp/bog, hardly great land for golf.

Whether he designed it on topos, or by going around on foot, or both, he certainly didn't have visions of specific hole corridors while riding past on the train.

Those are two seperate issues.

You favorite source, Shelley, said that maybe he saw the big picture, i.e. interesting terrain, from the train. 

Again, I ask you and everyone FAMILIAR with the site, WHAT INTERESTING TERRAIN ?  The SWAMP ?
Most of PV is invisible from the tracks due to the elevation differential between the tracks and the land south of the tracks.
So what did he see ?

I think he may have speculated correctly.  All the proof he offers of the hunting option is Crump sitting in a forest, undated.  Hard to see the big picture in the undergrowth. 

Then you're claiming Shelly lied.  That he fabricated the story.  That he intentionally misrepresented the time and place of the photo.
That he did no other research that would lead him to make the statement that Crump was familiar with the land, from hunting on it,, when Crump grew up just down the White Horse Pike from PV.

No, they didn't buy it from a mining company, they bought it from a sand company.

What does a sand company do, if not mine it?   

Probably the same thing that Sunoco does, sell their product.
Did you know that Sunoco is headquartered in Philadelphia.
I never knew that Philadelphia had such great oil reserves underground.

How tall do you suppose the trees were in the swamp? 

Probably not as tall as the trees growing adjacent to the tracks that blocked the view of the trees growing in the swamp.
Pines aren't particularly fond of swamps.

How would you know if it was a swamp if it was heavily forested with impenetrable pines?

Your lack of familiarity with the property is making you ask foolish questions.
There's dry land, elevated above the swamp, between the tracks and the swamp.

Ask those familiar with the property what you can see from the tracks, immediately adjacent to the begining of the 17th fairway, to the 17th green ?

Answer:  Nothing but trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Not an obsession, eh?  I think not, but that's okay, we're all a little looney tunes here.

BTW, in looking back on a first page post that has Crump de-training, it shows daylight and the photo is published in Dec 1909, for whatever that is worth.  Maybe someone can measure the shadows and calculate exactly what time of day it was so we can determine what train he was on.

BTW II, since we have photographic evidence that Crump was on a train in Dec 1909, and that date fits well within Tillie's comments of "nearly three years ago" it occurs to me, that even if Crump played no golf in 1910, perhaps that was the very train trip that he saw PV on!  TMac asks why someone would remember one trip out of many.  Its also fair to ask why they would photograph one de-training out of many.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

You're losing it.

While you argue with the rest of the world, except perhaps with Tom MacWood, consider this;

You ask me if I'm calling Shelly a liar, yet you out and out call Crump's close friend, AW Tillinghast, a liar.   The man who knew him in person...who took those train rides with Crump...who had known him for year's and was so shaken at Crump's death that he was moved to poetry.   You're not only calling him a liar, but that he lied three contemporaneous times and again 15 years after Crump's death.

By contrast, you offer as your "proof" Shelly's account from 1982 based on a photograph that shows Crump sitting in the woods that look to be anywhere, and tells us the photo is from 1909 on the same property.    While I don't think Shelly intentionally misrepresented that photo, he offers no additional information on how he made that determination.   He doesn't describe some inscription on the back that led him to that conclusion, or any other source of the photo.   Personally, I think if more evidence supporting the photo existed, he would have offered it.   No other evidence was presented by Shelly.

I have no doubt that Crump hunted the land, either prior to the train story, after it or both.   However, your continued insistence that Crump could not have seen the land from the train makes Tillinghast out to be a liar, and you're wrong on that count.   Clearly he reported what he believed of his close friend's discovery.

Clearly, Shelly as well did not doubt that Crump could have seen the land well enough from the train, and Shelly was a member for many decades and as familiar with the property as anyone could possibly be.   He conceded that it was possible to get a good long view of the property from the train, and thus paradoxically backed off his supposed "proof" in his very next sentence, which you saw fit to omit in your original posting.

[Tom MacWood]

If Crump found the site early in 1910 why did it take him until September 1912 (when he sent the letter to his friends) to rediscover it? Don't you find it odd he considered Absecon and Browns Mills before it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're losing it.

That implies that I once had it.

While you argue with the rest of the world, except perhaps with Tom MacWood, consider this;

You ask me if I'm calling Shelly a liar, yet you out and out call Crump's close friend, AW Tillinghast, a liar.  

It's a matter of context.
It's one thing to already be familiar with a parcel of land and point it out to others as a train passes it.
It's quite another to be sitting in a train, looking at the passing land, and suddenly shouting, EUREKA, I just saw the ideal land to build a golf course, which is the romantacized version.

You and everyone else except Tom MacWood claimed the latter until the Shelly account surfaced.

The man who knew him in person...who took those train rides with Crump...who had known him for year's and was so shaken at Crump's death that he was moved to poetry.   You're not only calling him a liar, but that he lied three contemporaneous times and again 15 years after Crump's death.

YES, I believe he embellished the story, the story intended for the local newspapers.
I didn't know there were Apple Trees on the property and that AWT was related to George Washington

By contrast, you offer as your "proof" Shelly's account from 1982 based on a photograph that shows Crump sitting in the woods that look to be anywhere, and tells us the photo is from 1909 on the same property.  

I didn't offer "PROOF", that's Shelly's very word.
You're referencing the 1909 photo as the sole proof and ignoring Shelly's reference to GAC's hunting the land and the fact that the land was just down the White Horse Pike from Crump's lifelong home in Merchantville.   You even ignored the caption to the left of the photo.

 While I don't think Shelly intentionally misrepresented that photo, he offers no additional information on how he made that determination.  

Neither does AWT.

He doesn't describe some inscription on the back that led him to that conclusion, or any other source of the photo.
How else would he know the year the photo was taken ?
How else would he know where the photo was taken ?
Did he just make up the time and place ?

Remember, Shelly's revelation was contrary to the myth.  He was demolishing a myth, and, his account would become the officially sanctioned history of Pine Valley, not some random newspaper article, so I'm fairly certain the information he presented was accurate 

Personally, I think if more evidence supporting the photo existed, he would have offered it.   No other evidence was presented by Shelly.

It's amazing how ardently you embrace Shelly's speculation while rejecting his factual reporting.

I have no doubt that Crump hunted the land, either prior to the train story, after it or both.   However, your continued insistence that Crump could not have seen the land from the train makes Tillinghast out to be a liar, and you're wrong on that count.  

This is another example how you get yourself in trouble, by lying.
I NEVER stated that Crump couldn't have seen the land from the train.
I stated that Crump didn't discover the land to build his incredible golf course by looking out the window of a speeding train, especially at night.

Clearly he reported what he believed of his close friend's discovery.

That's your opinion, but, THE issue is the issue of "DISCOVERY"
You've stated that you believe PV was discovered vis a vis the train sighting.
I don't, I believe PV was discovered while GAC was hunting on the land.

So, I'll ask you again, which is it.  Did he FIRST discover the land from the train or from his prior experiences ?
This question doesn't need explanations, take your pick, TRAIN or PRIOR EXPERIENCES ?