[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

hey sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.   

John Arthur Brown was clear when he stated, "Before-construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the NOW 4TH FAIRWAY, 2ND GREEN AND 3RD TEE"

I've quoted this for you several times, what about the word "FAIRWAY" don't you understand.
In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee, which would be your MIDDLE line.   The right side slope is consistent with that location.  From that point, it's impossible to see the RR tracks as Mike claims.

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?  not necessarily tree trunks, just general debris

B is a ravine?   Gully/Ravine

C are trees in the ravine?  Agreed

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Generally

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?Agreed



In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  

I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter.

The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.

John Arthur Brown DIDN'T say the 6th fairway.
He said, "The HIGH RIDGE of the 6th HOLE.
That could be the tee on # 6.
Or, the area between the tee and the fairway,
Or, the start of the fairway. 

Can we agree that :across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

No, I don't agree, JAB stated, "facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."   Why ignore his detailed description ?

I think the vantage point is closer to your middle line.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer?  

Land at 47 M, 48 M, 49 M, 50 M.

It looks like the short course to me.  

That's much further in the distance and to the LEFT of the line.

Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course.  

The short course isn't on the line of sight between # 6, # 4 fairway, #2 green and # 3 tee.,
But, the elevation next to the tee on the short course that comes closest to that line is 31 M, descending to 25 M at the RR tracks.

To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture.  

Then why are the trees to the right of the cleared area at a consistent height ?

The horizon is flat.  
Why wouldn't a horizon, 5, 10 or 20 miles in the distance be flat.

That is more consistent with my preferred line.

No, it's not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So Patrick,

Can we reasonably deduce from what you just said that the descriptions in the two books differ by the amount of truncation on the left side of the picture in the Shelly book, which we can also now reasonably deduce is the location of the third tee??

NO you can't.

Mike, in your ravenous zest to perpetuate your myth you can't even read posts correctly.

There is no horizontal truncation.

It's a vertical truncation showing less of the sky and less of the debris in the foreground.

Frankly, that knowledge should allow us to get fairly precise in determining the position of the camera, and it also makes clear that the features mentioned were NOT lined up in some single-file placement, but instead, taken from the high ridge of the 6th hole, which is also NOT the tee, and which presented all three of those features, from left to right being the 3rd tee, the 2nd green, and the 4th hole.

How do you know it's not the tee ?

Not the 4th hole Mike, but the 4th FAIRWAY.  JAB was clear in that.

And yes, the photo does "face(ing) the 4th fairway"...one is almost looking down the length of it from a right-front corner orientation.

Your statement is preposterous.
If you were looking down the 4th fairway, you could see the 6th tee, 5th green, 5th tee.
And, more importantly, the gully would be a huge crescent shaped pit.

Based on this information I would think the location of the photographer would be pretty close to where I have the "6F" fairway marked on this photo.

The location is between the begining of the 6th fairway and the 6th tee.




Here's the look from that area, which I think matches up in orientation pretty well to the old photo.

Actually, I think the photo may even be from closer to the 6th green, standing on the edge of the abyss/drop off on that side, but I don't want Patrick to go all apoplectic here.   

If the photo was taken from the 6th green as you'd like the uninformed to believe, the entire rim of the pit would be visible as would the other features I mentioned.

Unfortunately, your agenda just won't let you be objective.

And, if you were looking TO the 2nd green, why would you show it in the far left corner of your exhibit ?
Shouldn't it be in the MIDDLE of the photo, as Shelly indicated.
But, we know, that the closer you show the 2nd green in the middle of the picture, the less likely you are to see the white road/path.

Why have you failed to answer the questions I asked you about the white road/path ?

I've asked you several times, over several days, and yet you refuse to answer those questions.

WHY ?

Because it destroys another of your myths.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Once again, you keep putting words in Shelly's mouth that aren't there.   Where does Shelly ever say that the 2nd green was in the middle of the photo?

It's really clear that all of the features mentioned are on the left side of the photo(s), as the ravine takes up most of the right half.

You can see the 4th fairway climbing up in the left-center of the photo, with the 2nd green just left of that.

I'm betting if we had the photo from the Brown book posted that the slightly expanded area to the left of that photo would include the 3rd tee, but it apparently doesn't appear in the Shelly photo we do have.   That fact lets us orient the photo and location of the photographer much more precisely.

That is precisely what also appears in the Google Earth mockup I produced here, except that I've expanded it to the left to also show the location of the 3rd tee, which I'm betting looks a lot like the photo in the Brown book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Once again, you keep putting words in Shelly's mouth that aren't there.   Where does Shelly ever say that the 2nd green was in the middle of the photo?

Mike, he states, "Looking from  the height of the present 6th fairway ACROSS the 4th TO the 2nd green"

If you're looking at, if you're focused on the 2nd green, do you think the 2nd green would be in a far corner of the photo.
Please, at the very least, try using common sense,  I know it destroys your train myth, but give common sense it's due.

It's really clear that all of the features mentioned are on the left side of the photo(s), as the ravine takes up most of the right half.

You can see the 4th fairway climbing up in the left-center of the photo, with the 2nd green just left of that.

That's your interpretation

I'm betting if we had the photo from the Brown book posted that the slightly expanded area to the left of that photo would include the 3rd tee, but it apparently doesn't appear in the Shelly photo we do have.   That fact lets us orient the photo and location of the photographer much more precisely.

That's just wishful thinking on your part.
It does no such thing.
What it does show is that the white road/path is just an extension of the path that leads up the center of the photo.

That is precisely what also appears in the Google Earth mockup I produced here, except that I've expanded it to the left to also show the location of the 3rd tee, which I'm betting looks a lot like the photo in the Brown book.

How much are you willing to bet ?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions I asked you about the white road/path ?

Is it because TEPaul can't supply you with the answers and you don't have them either ?

Or, is it because the white road/path is just that, a road/path in the project.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

hey sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.  

John Arthur Brown was clear when he stated, "Before-construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the NOW 4TH FAIRWAY, 2ND GREEN AND 3RD TEE"

I've quoted this for you several times, what about the word "FAIRWAY" don't you understand.

In your quote above you say that Shelley uses the word "fairway" too.  Can you admit that you were erroneous on that?  Of course, with you unable to post the JAB photo, we don't know that your quote of that is accurate or not.  This is getting kind of TePpy.  

In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee, which would be your MIDDLE line.   The right side slope is consistent with that location.  From that point, it's impossible to see the RR tracks as Mike claims.

When looking at a scene, your eye can take in a fairly broad field of view.  What makes you so sure that JAB wasn't describing what he could see in the field of view?  Where is the smoking gun that they were exactly aligned?

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?  not necessarily tree trunks, just general debris

B is a ravine?  Gully/Ravine

C are trees in the ravine?  Agreed

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Generally

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?Agreed



In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  

I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter.

The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.

John Arthur Brown DIDN'T say the 6th fairway.
He said, "The HIGH RIDGE of the 6th HOLE.
That could be the tee on # 6.
Or, the area between the tee and the fairway,
Or, the start of the fairway.

The tee is at 150 feet.  The fairway ridge is at 164 feet.  Seems unlikely he was referring to the tee.

Can we agree that "across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

No, I don't agree, JAB stated, "facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."   Why ignore his detailed description ?

I think the vantage point is closer to your middle line.

OK, I'll humor you on this point.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer?  

Land at 47 M, 48 M, 49 M, 50 M.

It looks like the short course to me.  

That's much further in the distance and to the LEFT of the line.

How do you figure that.  See the new picture below with your preferred centre line.  It passes across the short course.  In the 45* field of view the 206 foot hill on the short course would be in the left side of the picture.  The right side of the 45* field of view is down around 100 feet.  Where is that slope down from 200 feet to 100 feet across the field of vision of the picture?



Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course.  

The short course isn't on the line of sight between # 6, # 4 fairway, #2 green and # 3 tee.,  Yes, it is.  See picture above.  I know you have eye issues.  Do they include tunnel vision?   
But, the elevation next to the tee on the short course that comes closest to that line is 31 M, descending to 25 M at the RR tracks.

To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture.  

Then why are the trees to the right of the cleared area at a consistent height ?  Because they are across the RR track and the field of view is to the right of where you want it to be.

The horizon is flat.  
Why wouldn't a horizon, 5, 10 or 20 miles in the distance be flat.

What makes you think the horizon is 5 or more miles distant.  The short course is only a half mile from the 6th fairway and you wouldn't be able to see over the 206 foot high hill.  Using your preferred centre line, downtown Clementon is only 1.5 miles away.  I guess there are no church spires that would have stood out on the horizon.

That is more consistent with my preferred line.

No, it's not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

hey sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.  

John Arthur Brown was clear when he stated, "Before-construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the NOW 4TH FAIRWAY, 2ND GREEN AND 3RD TEE"

I've quoted this for you several times, what about the word "FAIRWAY" don't you understand.

In your quote above you say that Shelley uses the word "fairway" too.  Can you admit that you were erroneous on that?  Of course, with you unable to post the JAB photo, we don't know that your quote of that is accurate or not.  This is getting kind of TePpy.  

I quoted them each, so many times, that I added "fairway" to Shelly's quote.

In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee, which would be your MIDDLE line.   The right side slope is consistent with that location.  From that point, it's impossible to see the RR tracks as Mike claims.

When looking at a scene, your eye can take in a fairly broad field of view.  What makes you so sure that JAB wasn't describing what he could see in the field of view?  Where is the smoking gun that they were exactly aligned?

When a guy says facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee, can there be any doubt what he was focused on ?
If I say, look at that house across the street, are you going to tell me that I meant you should look elsewhere ?

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?  not necessarily tree trunks, just general debris

B is a ravine?  Gully/Ravine

C are trees in the ravine?  Agreed

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Generally

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?Agreed



In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  

I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter.

The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.

John Arthur Brown DIDN'T say the 6th fairway.
He said, "The HIGH RIDGE of the 6th HOLE.
That could be the tee on # 6.
Or, the area between the tee and the fairway,
Or, the start of the fairway.

The tee is at 150 feet.  The fairway ridge is at 164 feet.  Seems unlikely he was referring to the tee.

The ridge extends back to the 6th tee and beyond

Can we agree that "across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

No, I don't agree, JAB stated, "facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."   Why ignore his detailed description ?

I think the vantage point is closer to your middle line.

OK, I'll humor you on this point.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer?  

Land at 47 M, 48 M, 49 M, 50 M.

It looks like the short course to me.  

That's much further in the distance and to the LEFT of the line.

How do you figure that.  See the new picture below with your preferred centre line.  It passes across the short course.  In the 45* field of view the 206 foot hill on the short course would be in the left side of the picture.  The right side of the 45* field of view is down around 100 feet.  Where is that slope down from 200 feet to 100 feet across the field of vision of the picture?

That's because you placed the camera between the fairway and the tee and drew your line to the left of the green.
If the camera location is at the begining of the fairway and goes through the 2nd green, the short course isn't behind it.



Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course.  

The short course isn't on the line of sight between # 6, # 4 fairway, #2 green and # 3 tee.,  Yes, it is.  See picture above.  I know you have eye issues.  Do they include tunnel vision?   


Move your camera location to the start of the 6th fairway and through the 2nd green, which is what Shelly stated, and where does that put your line ?
But, the elevation next to the tee on the short course that comes closest to that line is 31 M, descending to 25 M at the RR tracks.

To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture.  

Then why are the trees to the right of the cleared area at a consistent height ?  
Because they are across the RR track and the field of view is to the right of where you want it to be.

Nonsense, they're on this side of the railroad tracks.
Just look at your distances.  The RR tracks are 400 yards further back, those trees are up close and personal

The horizon is flat.  
Why wouldn't a horizon, 5, 10 or 20 miles in the distance be flat.

What makes you think the horizon is 5 or more miles distant.  

Because I was there last week and looked at it.
And, I'll trust my eyes, with corrective lenses, more than your guesses and estimates.
Do you know you could see the bridge spanning the Delaware from the 18th tee ?
What's that, 15 miles ?
And, the 18th tee is about 41 Meters, the 6th fairway 47 Meters.

The short course is only a half mile from the 6th fairway and you wouldn't be able to see over the 206 foot high hill.  Using your preferred centre line, downtown Clementon is only 1.5 miles away.  I guess there are no church spires that would have stood out on the horizon.

That is more consistent with my preferred line.

No, it's not.

But, if I accepted your middle line, there's no way in the world that the RR tracks would be visible.

Perhaps you're confusing them with the road that runs through the first fairway or the road that runs parallel to the 2nd fairway.

[JESII]

I can't quite make sense of what this particlar argument is trying to prove to either party but I would suggest this, if the camera were in the center of a clock facing 12 o'clock, what would the orientation of the pond/chasm be?

It looks to me to be from between 7 and 8 running up towards 1 or 2. If this heading is agreeable then the camera position should be pretty easy sincewewoud all agree it'll be close to the edge of the ridge.



Tom Macwood, you said:

"There is not a single report of him playing the game that year prior to leaving the country, and the man was prolific golfer who was constantly in the papers (years before and after)."

I'm curious if you can substantiate this. Please help!

[JESII]

I sould edit that...the camera would actually be below the clock looking straight up to 12...in any event, the 6th tee seems to look perpendicular at the pond and the green seems to look headlong down it...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

If Bryan is correct about the 45* angle of the camera, that would make the RR tracks impossible to see from the middle and left lines.

Getting back to topos for a second, is there an available photo of the "stick" routing "

[JESII]

Jim,

If Bryan is correct about the 45* angle of the camera, that would make the RR tracks impossible to see from the middle and left lines.

OK! Do you agree that the lake seems to run off at an angle similar to a 7:30 to 1:30 heading? If so, wouldn't you also agree that looking from the 6th tee across to the 2nd green would be fairly straight across the lake? The most recent aerial photo makes that clear once you recognize that the three lines are near the beginning of the fairway...100 yards or so in front of the tee. From the tee, the view to the second green goes over the lake in a perpendicular manner.

It seems the picture was taken near the corner of the dogleg...what's the point?

I never read the report that said the 6th fairway was visible from the tracks so why are we debating the liklihood of that?

The swamp that became the lake down by 14, 15 and 16 provided an unencumbered view of the "unique" terrain for a 300 yard run from behind the current 17th tee to the 14th green. I'll even bet Crump could envision some of the unique, never before seen sidehill lies as the train sped by...

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

They sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.   

John Arthur Brown was clear when he stated, "Before-construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the NOW 4TH FAIRWAY, 2ND GREEN AND 3RD TEE"

I've quoted this for you several times, what about the word "FAIRWAY" don't you understand.

In your quote above you say that Shelley uses the word "fairway" too.  Can you admit that you were erroneous on that?  Of course, with you unable to post the JAB photo, we don't know that your quote of that is accurate or not.  This is getting kind of TePpy.   

I quoted them each, so many times, that I added "fairway" to Shelly's quote.

In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee, which would be your MIDDLE line.   The right side slope is consistent with that location.  From that point, it's impossible to see the RR tracks as Mike claims.

What the heck is a "linear world"?  Where does JAB say you're supposed to line up the 4 objects?  I put the camera near the 6th tee to humor you.  Do you want to put it on the 6th tee?  The forward, or the back one?  On either, why wouldn't JAB have captioned it as looking over the 5th green as well, because from the 6th tee it's directly in line with the 4th fairway and 2nd green and 3rd tee?

When looking at a scene, your eye can take in a fairly broad field of view.  What makes you so sure that JAB wasn't describing what he could see in the field of view?  Where is the smoking gun that they were exactly aligned?

When a guy says facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee, can there be any doubt what he was focused on ?
If I say, look at that house across the street, are you going to tell me that I meant you should look elsewhere ?

If a guy said that, I'd think he meant that those objects were somewhere in the field of view of the photo, not that they were lined up like sitting ducks.

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?  not necessarily tree trunks, just general debris

B is a ravine?   Gully/Ravine

C are trees in the ravine?  Agreed

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Generally

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?Agreed



In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green. 

I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter.

The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.

John Arthur Brown DIDN'T say the 6th fairway.
He said, "The HIGH RIDGE of the 6th HOLE.
That could be the tee on # 6.
Or, the area between the tee and the fairway,
Or, the start of the fairway.

The tee is at 150 feet.  The fairway ridge is at 164 feet.  Seems unlikely he was referring to the tee.

The ridge extends back to the 6th tee and beyond

It does?  The tee looks to be a bit lower than the fairway and there is that dip in front of the tee.  I guess you wouldn't want to put your camera down there if it was on the high ridge.



Can we agree that "across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

No, I don't agree, JAB stated, "facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."   Why ignore his detailed description ?

I think the vantage point is closer to your middle line.

OK, I'll humor you on this point.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer? 

Land at 47 M, 48 M, 49 M, 50 M.

It looks like the short course to me. 

That's much further in the distance and to the LEFT of the line.

How do you figure that.  See the new picture below with your preferred centre line.  It passes across the short course.  In the 45* field of view the 206 foot hill on the short course would be in the left side of the picture.  The right side of the 45* field of view is down around 100 feet.  Where is that slope down from 200 feet to 100 feet across the field of vision of the picture?

That's because you placed the camera between the fairway and the tee and drew your line to the left of the green.
If the camera location is at the begining of the fairway and goes through the 2nd green, the short course isn't behind it.



Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course. 

The short course isn't on the line of sight between # 6, # 4 fairway, #2 green and # 3 tee.,  Yes, it is.  See picture above.  I know you have eye issues.  Do they include tunnel vision?   


Move your camera location to the start of the 6th fairway and through the 2nd green, which is what Shelly stated, and where does that put your line ?

It rotates the centre line a little to the right.  Closer to where I thought it should be.  The change is marginal and the short course is still within the field of view defined by the right and left lines.  Stop being silly.

But, the elevation next to the tee on the short course that comes closest to that line is 31 M, descending to 25 M at the RR tracks.

To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture. 

Then why are the trees to the right of the cleared area at a consistent height ? 
Because they are across the RR track and the field of view is to the right of where you want it to be.

Nonsense, they're on this side of the railroad tracks.
Just look at your distances.  The RR tracks are 400 yards further back, those trees are up close and personal

The horizon is flat. 
Why wouldn't a horizon, 5, 10 or 20 miles in the distance be flat.

What makes you think the horizon is 5 or more miles distant. 

Because I was there last week and looked at it.
And, I'll trust my eyes, with corrective lenses, more than your guesses and estimates.
Do you know you could see the bridge spanning the Delaware from the 18th tee ?  No I didn't.  Which bridge would that be?  How tall is it?
What's that, 15 miles ?  About 11 miles.
And, the 18th tee is about 41 Meters, the 6th fairway 47 Meters.

The short course is only a half mile from the 6th fairway and you wouldn't be able to see over the 206 foot high hill.  Using your preferred centre line, downtown Clementon is only 1.5 miles away.  I guess there are no church spires that would have stood out on the horizon.

That is more consistent with my preferred line.

No, it's not.

But, if I accepted your middle line, there's no way in the world that the RR tracks would be visible.

Perhaps you're confusing them with the road that runs through the first fairway or the road that runs parallel to the 2nd fairway.

You're confused.  The middle line in the picture below is your line, not mine.  Mine is the leftline - up on the 6th fairway ridge.

I didn't think there were any roads there then.  After all, it was a dense jungle that was just being cleared.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I think I agree with you.  The picture was taken from nearer the green than the tee based on the orientation of the then ravine, now pond.  Patrick is objecting because Mike thinks he sees the train tracks in the background of the picture, and Patrick doesn't want to accept that.  I was just trying to see if it was plausible for the tracks to be located where Mike sees them in the picture.  I think it possible, but not definitive.  Does it matter?  Not really.  Pat just has to maintain his myth that nothing was visible from the train.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

I can still not make sense of this photo.



I don't get the caption and how it's possible to see the third green and 4th fairway on the left and then see the 6th fairway to the right.  I do not see a position where that view would be possible.

In any event, when I was out playing today I was looking at our dense jungle-like surrounding forests and wondering what they would look like in photos from various distances.  So, here is a picture taken from 280 yards away:




And, one from 160 yards away.




And, one from 65 yards away.




The trees are 50 to 60 feet tall.  If the picture from PV above is showing 50 foot trees, then the picture must have been taken from a long way away to make them appear so small.  Alternately, maybe they are just dwarf trees taken from closer in.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Once again we see all these supposed people who said he found the site hunting, but not a single quote or context or timeline provided.
These supposed people...are you serious? Among these supposed people were a number of insiders. Other than Tilly who claims he found the site while on a train? No one. It is bogus story corroborated by no one.

I prefer the accounts of those who were there with him at the time, thank you.

And your two accounts mention 1) Crump hasn't played in local tournaments this season reported Nov 1910, and 2) Business has kept him away for awhile, reported in Feb 1911.   From those two statements you somehow miraculously garner that he never played golf with his friends in Atlantic City during the winter of 1909/10 as had been his habit since the beginning of the century.
Have you found single report of him playing golf in 1910 (prior to his trip abroad)?

As far as North Shore, did NS pay Raynor, or did CBM?   My understanding is that North Shore paid Raynor $400 in 11/1914 for him to act in an advisory capacity.   In January, 1915, Raynor was approved to build the new course and Raynor was to submit plans for the Greens Committee's approval, which were later approved, as well as paying Raynor $1,800 for his plan, calling him an "expert".   Did CBM advise?   Yes, he did, but you try to make it sound like a CBM designed course and there again is no evidence for your claim.
Don't try to distort what was be asked....and what some people were trying to present. They tried to make the case that NS was Raynor's first solo design and in the process information was not revealed. When the info finally got out it was clear it was collaboration and not solo effort....confirming CBM's statement about Raynor being a pre-graduate before 1917. Try to get your facts straight.

And, if you ever actually saw the course in person, you would have to chuckle that you called it a Robert White course.   I've played many of his, and really enjoy his work, but if that ain't Raynor, I'd eat my hat.   You would never call it "unlike any Raynor course" if you actually were there in person, Tom.   There is an original redan, Biarritz, Eden, and a terrific Road hole, as well as Double Plateau greens, and other of the template features, and they are bold.
I'm sure you are a real Robert White expert. You would throw him under the bus like you would throw any number of historical architects under the bus if helped you make some kind of point. You have never cared about accurate historical accounts. You are a disgrace when it comes to history.It was a collaboration between Raynor, CBM and White. It is unlike any Raynor or CBM course too, which is why for years it was thought to be a Tilly design.

Once again, you take a statement and paraphrase it in a way never intended.   For instance, please provide us the exact CBM quote where he said Raynor didn't go solo until 1917?   You can't because he never said that, just like the bunch of men above you told us said Crump found the site while hunting either (A) Never really said that, (B) Weren't there at the time, (C) were quoting from someone else years later who also wasn't with Crump, or (D) mentioned hunting in general terms, which could have happened ANY time after Crump originally found the site, or E) bungled so many known facts years later that their credibility is undermined, like the Camden News guy in 1927 who said that Crump owned 300 acres on the land that he had used for hunting.   Oh, and then there is the childhood hunting story.   Which is more the myth??

It's funny...you are the one who keeps bringing up Philadelphia and myths...I just keep providing the facts.   Who exactly is paranoid again?

You have a tendency to distort and exaggerate...why is that?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

I can't see a lot of your images from this computer, but did want you to know a few things.

1) You're correct, there is no doubt that the photo was taken from closer to the green than the tee, probably very close to the green on 6.   Do you see that dirt road running up the fairway?   There was some debate on an email whether it was the sandy path along the left side of today's number 4, or what is today a macadam road along the right side of the 4th fairway running to the clubhouse.  

No matter.   If you look at the orientation of both those roads you'll see that you almost have to be on the 6th green to view them in the longitudinal direction they are heading.

2) Because I'm presently image-disabled, early in this thread Paul Turner posted a very early picture of PV from behind the #18 tee.   Down the right of that photo one could see the high embankment of the railroad bed, which is what I'm thinking is in the background of that photo from the 6th green.   If you line up the coordinates that I sent you in a private message, could you see if that makes sense?   Also, if you can find Paul's picture here I'd greatly appreciate you re-posting it.

3) I'm thinking that the other photo simply shows the 3rd green across the area of the 4th tee to the ridge of the 6th fairway on the upper right side.   If so, the distance from the front-middle of the 3rd green to the trees in the distance is about 75 yards.  

If it was mislabelled, and it's a picture from the third tee, which is possible, I guess, the distance to the trees would be about 170 yards.  

Hope that helps...thanks.


Tom MacWood,

Again, why in the world would any newspaper report that Crump played "ballsomes" with his friends in Atlantic City during the winter of 1909/10?

And, once again, we're provided with no quotes or context from the supposed numerous hunting accounts.   Could it be that Crump mentioned it to Tililnghast and Tillinghast alone?   Why in heaven's name would Tillinghast make it up?   Was riding a train somehow more adventurous and romantic than ruggedly hunting game back in Teddy Roosevelt's day?   Your (and Patrick's) whole case here is absurd and would be thrown out of any court in the land.

Finally, what do you base you assessment of Raynor vs White's architectural styles on?   I've played 12 Robert White courses and an equal dozen of Raynor's.

How many of each have you actually seen to make some type of valid comparison of their styles?

[JESII]

I don't think the picture could be from too close to the green because you would be looking headlong down the ravine...which we clearly are not. I think it's from near the corner of the dogleg (purely due to the angle of the ravine)...which just so happens to be the high point of this immediate area for what that's worth...

[JESII]

Tom Macwood, you said:

"There is not a single report of him playing the game that year prior to leaving the country, and the man was prolific golfer who was constantly in the papers (years before and after)."

I'm curious if you can substantiate this. Please help!

[Jeff_Brauer]

My two cents is that the picture in question must have been taken by the sixth green, regardless of what Patrick thinks and wants to prove.  We are obviously looking down the length of the clearing on 4 (and maybe 2-3) not across it.  However, I agree with Patrick that the white line in the upper right isn't the railroad tracks, but yet another construction haul road that may or may not still exist in some form as a road across the first fw.

But, as usual, some would argue I should believe them, and not my own eyes!

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I think the camera is near the green, but pointed over towards the 4th fairway, with the 2nd green to the left of it.

In other words, I think if the cameraman turned to his right and shot straight at the clubhouse that the photo would be down the length of the ravine.

[JESII]

Another For What It's Worth thought is that the white line Mike thinks is the tracks and Pat thinks couldn't be, because they are white, is that it is the road just beyond the tracks. The tracks are not raised at that point the way they are near 14 - 17. If anything they are recessed from the golf course side slightly in the 1st hole/2nd tee area...


Bryan,

Mike may be right about that picture of the 3rd green lower left being mislabeled. It looks more like going down the hill on 3 and the ridge behind it but I can't make much sense of any of them.


Mike,

You can clearly see the ravine in front of him with the nearest point being to his front/lower left and moving off like long right. If the cameraman turned to his right he might lose the ravine altogether. Not sure I'm buying your placement.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Would you say about an inch or so right of where I marked the "6F"?




It possibly could be the entrance road, which is even more amazing that it shows up through all that jungle.      

Seriously, how much of #18 do you think might be visible in that photo...your buddy in Newtown Square seems to think quite a bit.  

[JESII]

No Mike, I would say about an inch in from the right edge of the picture. Right near the corner of the dogleg. 100 yards in real terms from your 6F.

I also don't see any reason to think those paths coming towards the camera have any connection to the macadam road to the right of 4 or the caddie walk up the left...why would these paths in the picture be retained? There's no reason.

Looking a little more at the one you guys have been debating is interesting.

The edges of the ravine are not all that far to the right of the path coming at the camera which means that path is near the middle of todays 4th fairway.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Gotcha...would you say any of the 18th was visible?  If so, how much?

[JESII]

Possibly a sliver...I would guess none of it, but if you told me the back couple yards of the green made it in I wouldn't be shocked.

[Mike Cirba]

How high do we think that railroad bed is on the right of 18? (it continues in an elevated fashion all the way thru 14 going south)

About 15 feet?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()