[DMoriarty]

Delete it.

[Mike Cirba]

Delete it.

We now have a new first here on GCA.  

Instead of a site for shared information we have the very first legal challenge regarding the shared use of public domain information posted by others.

Wow.  

So much for simply wanting to find out what happened.

The site has been taken over by the bullies.   Let them have it.

At least everyone now sees clearly what we've been dealing with.

[DMoriarty]

I am sharing information Mike.  I posted the pic and for you to look at and study, and so far at least I have not removed the photo.  I may pull them all down if you can't abide by my simple request.  

And I have no problem with you studying the photos to your heart's content, or discussing it to try and support your tree theory.   But I will not abide by you reposting my photos again and again, pointlessly clogging up the thread.   While your attention span may not allow you to look a few posts or pages above at the last time it was posted, others of us are quite capable of so doing.  There is no valid reason for you to repost this stuff over and over again, and you do not have my permission to use my photos to do so.  I cannot control what you do with Joe Bausch's work product, or your own work product (if any.)   But I do have say in how and when my photograph is copied and displayed.  And YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to copy it or repost it.  

 I tried to be reasonable by allowing your first copy to stand, because I assumed you were displaying the link I had provided Bryan, but now I see you have copied my photo into your Flickr account.   I am not going to waste my time explaining copyright law to you, but you may want to read your terms of service. In the meantime, delete the photo from ALL of your posts, from your flickr account, and from anywhere else you might have posted it and/or copied it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Actually might be a good time to review both copyright law as it applies to photos posted here (I have saved many to my computer files, perhaps for future use in presentations) and I know that there is a protocol for linking web page, presumably using a link rather than copying to ensure that the originator of an article gets the almight click count up.

It is so easy to copy net info, I suspect the old rules have to be changed to keep up.  David?

[Dan_Callahan]

For what it's worth:

The Copyright Act, Section 106 (exclusive rights) says that reproduction and display of another's copyright image can be infringement and therefore illegal. 

The Copyright Act, Section 107 (fair use) says that "notwithstanding Section 106", there are certain kinds of reproductions and displays that are fair use and therefore, not an infringement or illegal -- even when used without the permission or attribution of the copyright owner. Such uses include but are not limited to parody, criticism, commentary, news reporting, educational use, etc.  To determine whether a particular use is a fair use, courts look at four main factors, including (1) the purpose of the use, (2) whether the original work was published and/or fictional, (3) the amount of the work taken, and (4) the potential harm to the market for the original work. Factors 1 and 4 are generally considered the most important.

[Bryan Izatt]

Vis-a-vis the trees in the distance of the picture, here is an radial elevation profile from the inside corner of the 6th fairway, across the ravine, 4th fairway, 1st fairway, thee RR and on out to near Clementon Road.  As is evident, nothing would be visible from the top of the 4th fairway ridge until well past the RR tracks.  That leaves two possibilities for the trees in the background: they are all before the top of the 4th fairway ridge, or they are three quarters of a mile away almost to Clementon Road.  I would go with the latter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Much like the cross sections gca's use to test visibility!  Or, at least the good ones....I can't count how many times a young guy has drawn what he thinks is a great golf hole, only to find out most of it's blind. 

What program did you use?  A cad program, or just manually and drew it in something else?

[Bryan Izatt]

It was measured manually on Google Earth and plotted in Excel.  Tedious work.

[DMoriarty]

I am not going to get into a big discussion on the intricacies of copyright law on a website about golf course architecture.  Surely there must be a different website out there for those interested in dissecting the topic.  

Mike can twist this and spin it any way he likes, but is really an issue of his lack common courtesy and self control more than than anything else. I took the time and put forth the effort to set up and create a much higher resolution photo of the image in question, and edited my photo to improve visibility and usability.  Because others, including Mike, had never seen this photo (Mike was of course opining about it anyway) I posted my photo here and linked to a larger, further edited version for everyone, including Mike, to study and review.   Upon posting it I made a rather simple and reasonable request -- that Cirba refrain from repeatedly posting my image as he has with other images and articles.  I made the request because  IMO Cirba's incessant reposting of the same information and source material disrupts the flow of the discussion and detracts from both the source material and the threads. In short, it clogs up the threads and discussions. I want no part of it, so he does not have my permission to repost my photos.  Simple as that.

Mike was unwilling to abide (and/or incapable of abiding) by that simple request. He couldn't even make it 24 hours before he started reposting the image. So I told him that he needed to delete the copies of my photo, and told him why.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Been away, I'll be back this weekend, maybe earlier.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,
 

As David suggests, the trees behind could be the edge of the clearing, but why would they stop on the top of the ridge or even anywhere on the property out to the tracks, since the fairway areas seem to be clear cut.

Bryan, Actually I should have also said that we could be seeing the edge of a clearing (or at least scattered trees) on one side or another of a ridge line.

The ridge on which the 3rd tee sits continues to rise to the west, and the ridge apparently runs all the way to your previously mentioned high point (about 200 ft elevation) on the short course (near the furthest south green on the short course.)  So from a camera angle looking more from the east of the third tee than north of it, a tree line to the west of the 3rd tee (if there was one) might be visible more behind the third tee than to the side of it.  Whether or not this is a true ridge visible as a ridge line and whether or not we might be able to see some sort of a tree line (or scatted trees) depends upon the camera angle.  

Also, I am not so sure that it is "clear cut" that everything on the course property over there was clear cut to the property lines.  Jeff seems to think he can the cut line of the 4th fairway, and it runs at a bias right through what you have indicated as the 4th fairway.  Moreover, I can't make it out for certain, I think the words "scattered trees" are written on the Topo, between the 2nd fairway and the 4th fairway.   Unfortunately there is no demarcation indicating how far up the hill (or over the hill) the "scattered trees" extend, but if there are scattered trees between the 2nd and 4th tees, the trees might appear on the false horizon line of the ridge, behind the 4th fairway, especially where the 4th fairway bends and after.  

Using Google Earth, I plotted the elevation profile on a transverse from the current 3rd tee to the current 5th tee.  I have overlaid it on the Brown picture.  It required some shifting left and right to try to get some alignment with the ridge line in red.  I see some alignment, but it is not perfect.  If it is approximately correct, then the 4th fairway and 5th tee are where i've indicated, while the 3rd tee is about 1.25"  outside the picture to the left.

Remember how I keep mentioning that I think your red line is missing a shallow indentation on the left side?   Well I think your green line has this shallow indentation, only it looks to be too far left --you have the indentation where your ridge line appears to be rising.    Were you to rerun your experiment with the same shaped line, only compressing it to start at about the 6, instead of the left edge, I think you'd have a much better match.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

What you seem to have left out of your X Section was the fact that the trees would have 20-60 ft height.  If a tree existed on the first fw, it would only need to be 40 feet high to be seen, for instance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you fellows realize that Mike Cirba has had you on a wild goose chase by claiming, for agenda driven purposes, that the bright white road/path in the photo of the property taken AFTER it had been cleared, was the RR Tracks.

Mike,

I told you, vis a vis postings/replies, over a half a dozen times, that I don't know how, or have the capability to scan a page in a book.
I'm not about to tear the page out of the book and run it through my scanner, which is a page feed scanner, not a flat bed scanner.

Yet, you again, disingenuously imply that I was deliberately refusing to scan and post the picture.
That's not just being intellectually dishonest, that's being blatantly dishonest.

But, this appears to be your method of operation.

Jeff,

Are you calling AWT a liar for stating that the woods and underbrush was so thick that it hid the land from mortal eyes ?

Are you calling Simon Carr a liar for stating that the property was covered in woods and underbrush so thick he called it "jungle" like ?

You claimed that AWT told the truth about Pine Valley, so why do you dispute his detailed written account of the land ?

I'll be back this weekend with my comments

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  Also, thanks for the graph.   Can you be more specific as to the end points? 

Also, and more importantly, any chance you can provide similar source information for your green line, including he info missing to the left?   Either by email or on here? Thanks. 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I hate to risk throwing a further wrench into the gears, but I think I noticed something else that need be considered.  If I recall correctly, much earlier you commented on how the horizon line in the photo was horizontal?  I haven't checked the Shelly photo, but the horizon line in my photo is definitely not horizontal.  Here is the photo with a horizontal guideline running from the right edge.   As you can see, IF photo represents the true horizon line then the horizon is at a  substantially higher elevation on the left than the right. 



Alternatively, if the horizon really is at a consistent elevation, then the photo (at least my photo) is crooked.  Here I rotated the photo one degree CCW, and added a second horizontal line, thus making the horizon more horizontal.   As you can see, it changes the apparently slope of the the land fairly significantly.   


I don't know which of these, if either, is accurate, but I am inclined to think that at the minor elevation changes we are discussing, that the horizon line would tend toward appearing horizontal at these great distances.   That said, if the first is more accurate and their is substantial rise in the land toward the left, then wouldn't that suggest that the photo was taken from a point where the rising land near the short course was on the left side of the photo? 

[DMoriarty]

Here is a rough mock up of what I suggested early as for the positions of the various features, placed on the photo adjusted one degree CCW.



Here is the same mockup using Bryan's green line but compressing it (with the same proportions) to fit my mock up.



Whether accurate or not, it seems to resolve many of the issues I have with the other theories.  For one thing, Brauer's clearing line matches what would be the approximate line of the property. For another only a portion of the current 4th fairway would be visible, and then it disappears around the trees to the right.  For another, the 2nd green is sitting in what looks to me to be lower ground than the location of the third tee.   For another, the mockup is at least consistent with some of the features of the land as they look to have existed at the time at least (as they appear to me.)

I am curious to see Bryan's green line to the left of where he cut it off.  My guess is it rises significantly from that point or shortly thereafter.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I see what you are going for.  On either the USGS or Stick topo, there is no real sharp upslope between 4 FW and 2 green that I see.  It seems to be right on the Property Line by 3 tee, but when you compress the photos it sort of "adds it there."  On the original photo, the sharp upslope seems to happen right in the upper left corner, at least to my eye.

Just MHO.

Besides, if the clearing line I pointed out really was the property line, then the field of vision of that old camera would have to be even wider to encompass the road below the RR tracks, wouldn't it?  Does anyone have any idea what the field of vision of those old cameras were?  This interpretation takes it wider than the 45 degrees presumed by Bryan, I think.

Pat,

I think Mike admitted the white streak was the road a long time ago.  I have said that I will use my own eyes on contemporary photos to decide that at least some of the land was scrubby, no matter what anyone says.  I don't know what your post is meant to say, but its it totally non productive, and compared to some of the analysis by Bryan, David and others, really a bush league effort.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Yes, the rise in elevation happens between the 2nd green and third tee.

By the way, I just received a subpeona in the mail...apparently, John Arthur Brown is suing me.

Finally, yes, it's pretty evident that the white line in the distance is the entrance road as seen in the 1931 aerial from much the same angle.

In that photo the railroad tracks can also be seen...elevated about 15 feet above the entrance road as it runs along that section.

[JESII]

Really enjoying the mock ups by David, Bryan and Mike's soon to be revealed (I think) one.

I would only say that the elevation differences from the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and the 2nd green to the 3rd tee are pretty mild...maybe four or 5 feet each? Google Earth probably helps some but I did notice it told me the new back tee on 3 was 5 feet lower than the middle tee so it's not infallible.

Regarding the elevation/slope in the distance. There's a good size hill across the tracks from Pine Valley as well.

David,

Are you seriously threatening Mike with legal action?

[JESII]

Jim,

I'll take a bite on a possible non-compete clause.  

If Lumberton owned the land, and if TEP is correct that it was mined, then it would make perfect sense, if Lumberton sold it to Crump as a golf course property, for them to protect themselves against Crump turning around and selling sand in competition.  Since Crump was obsessed with building a golf course, he would have no trouble signing such a non-compete clause.

Sure, but how about if Crump was the one that did the mining...in small amounts and to local clubs.

I guess my bias against any heavy sand mining going on is I can't see why Lumberton would sell 184 acres for $8,750 8 years after buying it if they were actively mining it and the EPA report doesn't seem to indicate the date of the mining activity...

[DMoriarty]

I would only say that the elevation differences from the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and the 2nd green to the 3rd tee are pretty mild...maybe four or 5 feet each? Google Earth probably helps some but I did notice it told me the new back tee on 3 was 5 feet lower than the middle tee so it's not infallible.

I agree that the slope up to the 3rd green is not very pronounced.  One reason I disagree with the interpretations thus far is that the slope on the far left of the photo is pronounced both in length and elevation, which is more consistent with the long slope up toward the short course.

David,

Are you seriously threatening Mike with legal action?

Respectfully Jim, we already have Mike's hysterics, so is it really necessary for you to further sensationalize the issue?   I made a reasonable and simple request of Mike with respect to his use of my photo.  He couldn't manage to comply for even 24 hours before he started treating my photo like the rest of his fodder, so I explained why copying the photo was wrong and told him to delete the copies. He did, at least from the thread, so unless he is so rude as to post, copy, keep, or distribute them against my wishes, then it's done.

But why are you turning this on me?  I took the time and trouble to create the photo and share it here. He showed his gratitude by rudely reposting my photo, even after I told him that he did not have permission to do so.  So why aren't you scolding him for being  so inconsiderate as to disregard my request?  After all, what kind of jerk treats the belongings of another with complete disregard for the wishes of the other?

What if you invited him for an afternoon of golf at your club, yet he abused your generosity by showing up day after day, demanding to play, is if your single invitation gave him permanent license to do whatever the hell he pleased at your club?  And when turned away, what if he threw an embarrassing hissy-fit, replete with a number of ridiculous public accusations about you and your intentions.   Would you instruct your club to oblige him indefinitely as your guest?   Or would you remind him of the rules of your club and of private clubs and private property, and tell him to pound sand?

If you chose the latter course of action I would not  blame you.   And I would not think  of suggesting you wrongly threatened legal action when all you had really done was to 1)inform  him why he was not welcome your club, and 2) tell him to get lost.

[JESII]

And I'm sensationalizing it?

Let's just talk golf!

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,
 

As David suggests, the trees behind could be the edge of the clearing, but why would they stop on the top of the ridge or even anywhere on the property out to the tracks, since the fairway areas seem to be clear cut.

Bryan, Actually I should have also said that we could be seeing the edge of a clearing (or at least scattered trees) on one side or another of a ridge line.  I'm not really sure which section of the photo you're talking about here.  Could you be more specific or annotate the photo to point to the areas you are talking about.

The ridge on which the 3rd tee sits continues to rise to the west, and the ridge apparently runs all the way to your previously mentioned high point (about 200 ft elevation) on the short course (near the furthest south green on the short course.)  So from a camera angle looking more from the east of the third tee than north of it, a tree line to the west of the 3rd tee (if there was one) might be visible more behind the third tee than to the side of it.  Whether or not this is a true ridge visible as a ridge line and whether or not we might be able to see some sort of a tree line (or scatted trees) depends upon the camera angle. In the part I bolded above, did you mean to say "south" instead of "north".  I don't think anybody has suggested the camera was in any way north or even north east of the 3rd tee.  I agree that if the camera was placed at the beginning of the 6th fairway looking to the 3rd tee that the ground should rise up to from right to left reflecting the short course hill.  

Also, I am not so sure that it is "clear cut" that everything on the course property over there was clear cut to the property lines.  Jeff seems to think he can the cut line of the 4th fairway, and it runs at a bias right through what you have indicated as the 4th fairway.  Moreover, I can't make it out for certain, I think the words "scattered trees" are written on the Topo, between the 2nd fairway and the 4th fairway.   Unfortunately there is no demarcation indicating how far up the hill (or over the hill) the "scattered trees" extend, but if there are scattered trees between the 2nd and 4th tees, the trees might appear on the false horizon line of the ridge, behind the 4th fairway, especially where the 4th fairway bends and after.  I have been puzzling over what those words were on the topo; "scattered trees" looks like it could be it. Granted that trees on the back side of the ridge might show over the ridge depending on how tall they were and were on the back side they were.  From the picture, the background trees look to be more a forest than scattered trees.  Do you see some that look like they are scattered and more in the foreground, but on the back of the ridge?

Using Google Earth, I plotted the elevation profile on a transverse from the current 3rd tee to the current 5th tee.  I have overlaid it on the Brown picture.  It required some shifting left and right to try to get some alignment with the ridge line in red.  I see some alignment, but it is not perfect.  If it is approximately correct, then the 4th fairway and 5th tee are where i've indicated, while the 3rd tee is about 1.25"  outside the picture to the left.

Remember how I keep mentioning that I think your red line is missing a shallow indentation on the left side?   Well I think your green line has this shallow indentation, only it looks to be too far left --you have the indentation where your ridge line appears to be rising.    Were you to rerun your experiment with the same shaped line, only compressing it to start at about the 6, instead of the left edge, I think you'd have a much better match. Do you mean to compress the line to the middle. How would you decide how much?  I guess it depends on what you think the field of view is in the picture.  Do you think it is wider than the distance between the 3rd tee and the 5th tee, about 360 yards.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

What you seem to have left out of your X Section was the fact that the trees would have 20-60 ft height.  If a tree existed on the first fw, it would only need to be 40 feet high to be seen, for instance.

I did think about that. If there were trees on either side of the 1st fairway they'd be 500 to 600 yards away.  They would need to be more than 40 feet tall to have their tips seen.  The trees in the foreground of the picture don't look that tall.  The ones in the distance are showing a lot above what I think is the ridge line.  They would likely need to be more like 80 feet tall to have the amount showing that we see in the photo.  Seems unlikely to me.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,  Also, thanks for the graph.   Can you be more specific as to the end points? 

Also, and more importantly, any chance you can provide similar source information for your green line, including he info missing to the left?   Either by email or on here? Thanks. 

If you mean the transverse profile, it started at the 3rd tee ion the left and ended at the 5th tee on the right.  I tried to follow the top of the ridge (actually, it's more of a nose) across, so it wasn't exactly a straight line between the two points.

In the following picture I've added a blue line, which is the complete profile from 3rd tee to 5th tee.  Shift and compress as you wish.  The green line is the best I could get.  It comes from just shifting the blue line to the left about an inch and a quarter and shiting up or down to best align with the red line.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()