Bryan,
You asked about corroboration for the story that Crump already owned the 300 acres. Way back in the beginning of the thread, Tom MacWood wrote the following: "Thomas Uzzell said Crump's father, who was a great huntsman, purchased the site as a hunting preserve, and the son inherited the property." If TomM checks in, maybe he can expand on this. Obviously at this point there isn't enough corroboration on this particular point, but it sounds as if at least two sources were singing a similar song. I agree with Patrick that it may be worth looking into. Unfortunately, this may not be particularly easy to do depending upon the nature of Crump's legal interest (if any) in the property.
As for your discussion with Patrick about the photo, I am not convinced that the ridges you marked in the photo from the 18th tee are the "ridges" you think they are. Likewise, I am not at all convinced that the horizon in the old photo is "dead flat. In fact I strongly doubt it. It is very difficult to tell with these photos, but it looks to me like there may be hills and/or ridges on the left side of the photograph, beyond the clearing on which you place the holes. As I said, I couldn't say for sure. But I don't think there is any way you can say for sure either.
Assuming (as I think you are) that the description on the photo is accurate, the 4th fairway and 2nd green are visible in the photo, right? And we know that the high point on the 4th fairway is about 150 ft. elevation? And the 2nd green is only slightly lower? And the 3rd tee, at about 160 feet, is also reportedly visible on the wider photo at least, and you have it in your mock-up. So we are looking from an elevation of 160-170 ft. over a 150-160 ft. ridge (at least) around a quarter a mile away. Yet the horizon line - at some unidentified distance in the background - is well above where you place the 2nd green, 4th fairway, and 3rd tee. Do you really think a ten foot elevation change is going to buy you that much viewable land horizon beyond the ridge?
You wrote: "Well, if Travis is to be believed, it should have been the Dwarf Pine Barrens, but then we know that none of the articles of the time are to be trusted."
What is the point of stuff like this? I don't think anyone doubts the contemporaneous description of the tree types, do they? If they do not, then why do you keep stating otherwise. Rather than a cheap shot, what is the point of this statement and similar ones? You claim you aren't trying to make a point, yet you continue to throw the "dwarf" reference out there. If you aren't trying to make a point, why do you keep throwing it out there?
I am glad to hear that you are not "brothers in arms" with Mike. Unfortunately, he thinks differently. He thinks that you don't call him on his behavior because you agree with him (and apparently his tactics.) That is the way his mind works. Does this help explain why we become frustrated when you and others sit silently while he wastes all of our time?