Pine Valley and Topos

[Tom MacWood]

Never has so much effort been put forth trying to prove or disprove an obviously fictitious story. This thread now surpasses Mike's considerable effort trying to prove Wilson went abroad in 1910. What makes people do things like this?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Good to see you back here.   Those of us without a historical revisionist agenda will continue to seek the truth based on facts instead of our self proclaimed superior logic and conjecture, thanks.   That would seem to include everyone here except you and Patrick....even David is genuinely pursuing different angles even if they are far off-track, only meant to prove me wrong, and ultimately clogging up the bowl.   Still, it's entertaining to see what he'll come up with next.  

Did you see where he went so far as to threaten legal copyright action against me for using the photo he took a picture of from the John Arthur Brown book?  That's certainly a first here at GCA, wouldn't you say?      In the meantime his own reproductive use of that photo is used again and again as he creates his own version of "Where's Waldo", scouring the entire property for something that remotely fits any possible alternative version of the photo all in a futile effort to prove me wrong.   As you say, what makes people do things like this?

While you're back, perhaps you can provide us with some factual information.   You've mentioned all of the people who supposedly told us that Crump found the site while hunting.

Can you tell us the date and context and exact quote of the first person who mentioned the Crump hunting story and/or any of the others?   I've already produced the "Joe Bunker" one and can find the specific date if needed, but believe it was 1914 or 1915.

As it turns out, Joe Bunker didn't say Crump found the site while hunting at all, did he?
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - in post 1449 - what is that thing directly behind the caddies?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike - in post 1449 - what is that thing directly behind the caddies?

Dan,

I'll resist cheap humor and tell you I believe it's an early ball washer.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I know in Philadelphia history is written in stone with a chisel, but in the rest of the world its written on paper with a pencil, and it has an eraser. History is often revised as new information is collected. I hate to break it to you but Wilson did not go abroad in 1910, Crump did not die from a tooth ache, and Tilly and Crump were not gazing out a train window in 1910. Carry on.

[Mike Cirba]

C'mon Tom...multiple times in this thread you've told us about all the supposed folks who say Crump found the site while hunting.

You should be able to tell us what they said exactly, when they said it, and in what context, no?   Who was the first?

[Tom MacWood]

C'mon Tom...multiple times in this thread you've told us about all the supposed folks who say Crump found the site while hunting.

You should be able to tell us what they said exactly, when they said it, and in what context, no?   Who was the first?

Mike
You have half dozen or more contemporaries claiming he found the site while hunting (by the way there all on this thread in case you've developed a case of amnesia....I will not be vomiting all over this thread in the Cerba-esque tradition). Some stories said he hunted there as a boy, some say he hunted there just prior to purchasing it, perhaps combination of the stories is true, whatever the case there is a consistent hunting scenario. Carry on.

[Mike Cirba]

I see, Tom...

You're perfectly fine with coming here and vomiting all over this supposedly worthless thread with your unproven conjecture trying to discredit the only eye-witness to early events, yet when asked to produce anything more factual and verbatim than some McCarthy-esque list of names of folks who supposedly said Crump found the site while hunting, suddenly this thread has become sacrosanct and you refuse to clutter it up.

You're something else, Tom.

I've already produced the one's from Joe Bunker and J.E. Ford.   Here's another from 1927.   Do you know anything about the author and/or his relationship with Crump?

Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia.
The plan and ideals of the holes are chiefly those
of the amateur owner with the cooperation of the
British golf architect, Mr. H. C.Colt.
His aim was to attempt
to achieve the maximum of variety, cunning
allurement in the play, and beauty
of contour and general setting. His
rugged sporting heritage inspired the
making of golf holes calling for more
than average power. It was to be a
course providing the greatest possible
delight to those who really knew and
have mastered the game. – Thomas H. Uzzell 1927


Were there any contemporaneous accounts?   Joe Bunker is about as close as I've found, and he just talked about Crump riding the property on horseback.

What did Alan Wilson and Jerome Travers say on the matter, and when did they say it?

The ironic thing Tom is that just like you wrote in your essay, both the train and the hunting stories are likely true and not in the least mutually exclusive.   You've just conveniently and not very convincingly changed your mind.

[Mike Cirba]

Now, can we finally dispense with this folly about the location of the photo and this ludicrous attempts to discredit Tillinghast's eye-witness account?

Personally, I'd like to move to comparison of the Stick Routing maps to the Colt topo, and to what eventually got built.

It would also be very interesting to compare the 1898 topo with the stick routing topo to look for evidence of mining operations on the site prior to Crump's purchase.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why do you continually offer photos of the site after it had been cleared as evidence of what it looked like before it was cleared.

Look at the dense woods everywhere except where the land was cleared for the golf course.
No one could see 25 feet through those woods.


Now look at the dense woods to the north of the RR tracks.
That's what existed south of the RR tracks.

AWT stated, after walking the property, that the woods and underbrush were so dense that the land was hidden from Mortal Eyes.

In addition, you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that the land form south of the tracks blocks most of the views south of the tracks WITHOUT any trees, and when you factor in the dense trees that are in evidence in the photos posted, you couldn't see 25 feet into the forest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure if this means anything or not, but tree lines are drawn on the map of the holes "As suggested by..." Harry Colt.

Mike, it's not a map, it's a schematic.

Are you now claiming that the schematic is representative of the trees pre and post clearing ?

That the schematic is an accurate representation of the trees and the land form pre and post clearing ?

I'm wondering if these were the tree lines that reflected existing forestation, whether they were tree lines reflecting planned re-forestation, or some combination of the above.   I do not believe the record shows that the entire property was ever clear cut, although it's possible that some sections were.

How could you "wonder" when the photographic evidence is quite clear.



One thing I find interesting is that none of the holes along the tracks from 18 green back to the proposed 17 tee have trees either existing or proposed.  

Do you find it interesting that the bunker on # 17 is into the RR tracks /
Do you HONESTLY believe that the schematic is an accurate representation of the land form and forestation ?

The Sumner train station can be seen drawn on the lower right of the map along the tracks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Here's approximately your field of view in the photo in red.

Then you shouldn't have a problem identifying the 5th green, 5th fairway and 5th tee in YOUR red line V, in the photos (Brown's, Shelly's and Google Earth's)

The blue and yellow lines were the ones you did to humor Patrick's completely debunked theory that the camera was near the sixth tee shooting straight across the 4th to the second green in the middle of the photo.

Mike, you're lying again.
I stated that I felt the photo was taken from the begining of the fairway near the 6th tee.

Notice the height of the elevation changes across the tracks in and around Lake Lekau.   Notice as well how much of the 18th fairway is in your view, including the road and tracks paralleling them.    Some even think I'm being conservative here, and believe that the right edge should be at about the 170 yard mark from the 18th tee.

If the photo was taken from the 6th green as you claim, then you'd clearly see the crescent land form forming the right side of the 6th hole, the landform for the 5th green, 5th fairway and 5th tee, but, you can't see any of that can you.

In any case, this is what you're looking at in the photo, likely from a camera elevated a bit, nearer the green than not from the 6th fairway, perhaps on a flat bed truck or some other type of slight elevation.



It would look something like one of these...

First from about halfway between the dogleg on 6 and the green.




Or this one, taken from close to the green.

You can see the angle of the road running up both photos and judge which one is closer to the angle of the road in the censored Moriarty photographed and copied from the John Arthur Brown book photo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why do you ignore the description of the photo provided by Shelly and Brown ?

Shelly clearly stated that the photo was taken looking ACROSS the 4th fairway TO  the second green.

Is that the view you've presented ?

NO, it's not, you've presented a view that your agenda demands, not an honest view as Shelly described it.

Unless of course, like Jeff Brauer, you need to have the words "ACROSS" and "TO" defined for you.

Brown stated that the photo FACED the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee.

He didn't state it faced the 4th green, 18th green or any other point.
He was specific, the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee.

Shelly described it as ACROSS the 4th TO the 2nd green.

Your interpretation is at serious odds with theirs, but, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

In addition, did you ever notice that the white road/path in the photo that you claim is the RR tracks, rises from the right to the left in the photo, when in actuality, the tracks rise from left to right.  It's a road/path, not RR tracks as your agenda forces you to promote.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Why don't you just skip to my last post where the trees in the photo prove where it was taken from.

Failing that, can we get this guy below in here and get on with discussing topos and changes to them over the years?   I had him wear a green shirt in honor of your posts, MacWood's Penn's envy, and David's new colorized photo technology, straight from Ted Turner.  

And for the record Patrick, you don't have my permission to re-use those photos and images I stole from Tom Paul, the Hagley Museum, USGS and Google Earth.   Because of my "work", I now own them and all intellectual and reproductive rights.

I'd suggest you get yourself a good lawyer!    

I'd also avoid looking to the west coast in that endeavor. 

[DMoriarty]

Cirba's latest pathetic and premature proclamation about how he has resolved everything is hardly revelatory, much less dispositive.  On a positive note, I see he got a hold of a copy of the photo in question, and it looks to be a very clear one.  Terrific. And I won't have to feel responsible when he posts it 200 times over the next dozen pages or so. 
____________________________________________________

Bryan and Jim, Here are a couple elevation profiles, courtesy Google Earth.  They might help demonstrate a few of my problems with the old photo being the 4th hole.  The first is an elevation profile running up the right side along the red line.


The second runs from the 3rd tees across to a point across the lake: 


At the point the two lines intersect the elevation is 149 ft, only 11 ft. lower than at the beginning of the line on the left. After this point the slope steepens substantially and runs down into the ravine and the lake at about 89 ft, 60 ft. lower than at the intersection.

Where is this 60 foot drop over 180 yards?   That is steep.  I don't see it in this photo. 

And it doesn't work to just assume the steep part is just out of view in the trees.  Because that doesn't match where you guys are trying to put the green, does it?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Thus is demonstrated the fundamental and irreplaceable value of actually having seen in person the things one pontificates about on here.

When that basic tenet is ignored, ofttimes arrogance rapidly turns into embarrassment.

You can keep arguing all you like but the jury has gone home.   Just shut out the lights when you're finished.

[JESII]

David,

I think the line you drew is pretty good. I feel like I can see the elevation drop you're seeking in the Brown picture copied here. My opinion of the frame of reference is that the darker evergreen trees below about the 1 1/4" mark are on your line and still a bit above the bottom of the ravine.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

My GE is apparently newer than yours.  The newer one has ground level view, but you can't hover with an oblique view as you've done.

So, you would have us believe that Brown and Shelly both got the location of the photo wrong, and the camera man climbed the water tower to tke the picture and ws pointed at a different hole altogether, and that there was actually a water tower there when the course was just being cleared.

And, you accuse Mike of flights of fantasy!

Regarding the picture, do you think that the Shelley and Brown pictures came from the same negative?  Were they just enlarged and cropped differently for each publication? One has landscape proportions, the other is more square.  What do you suppose the proportions of the negative were?

What kind of camera do you suppose was used?  A Kodak Brownie perhaps? 

My premise that the field of view was 45 degrees seems tp be wrong.  So, I'm going with a narrower field of view looking more up the 4th.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

The ravine angles across the picture. The end by the RR is not in view. At the very most, the 18th green might be on aline with th right edge.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Welcome back.  Perhaps you should read the last few pages before leaping back in.

Mike no longer claims that the white line is the RR.

David thinks the picture was taken from atop the water tower near the 12th tee looking ENE.  Perhaps that desrves a little of your green ink.

You are the only one left that thinks that the caption is literally accurate and that the photo was centred on the 3rd tee and 2nd green and taken from the beginning of the 6th fairway.  The background landforms don't match at all. But, hang tough, you're sounding very much like a Merionette clinging to a myth.

[JESII]

Jim,

Can you show under the ruler where you think the 4th green would be located?   I'm thinking it's at about the 3 inch mark.  

I would go to the right...maybe the 1.5" or 2" area.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

If Crump purchased the property from Lumberton would that not discredit the stories about him buying it uyears earlier, or inheriting it from his father. How many other hunting stories are there?  Precisely.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Would you agree with where Jim has the 4th green located in the photo, at about the 1.5, 2 inch mark?

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I have explained many times I have never been there and I don't know from where the photo was taken.  Nonetheless Bryan and Jim repeatedly asked me to provide my thoughts on the matter based on the limited information I have.  In such circumstances only a sleaze like you would pull the crap you do above.

And your routine is more than a bit tired.  For the umpteenth time, you post a photo as if it makes your point self-evident, when your own evidence may cut against your point more than for it.  The slopes in your new post do not match the slopes in the photo.

Maybe you are correct.  Maybe if I had been there I would understand.  But if that is the case, then a man of so many words as you ought to be able to put into words whatever it is about the photo that you think makes it so evident.   Otherwise, this seems nothing but another lame attempt on your part to jump to your conclusion despite the evidence.  And as we all know by now, your conclusion is almost always the wrong conclusion.
_______________________________________________________________________

Jim,

You said you thought the line I drew was "pretty good"  Which line, and "pretty good" in relation to what?  

Can you tell me on the photo where this drop from 150 feet down to 90 feet begins and ends?   Because I don't see it?

Basically I am trying to determine where you place the edge of the ravine.  Perhaps if you told me where in the photo you would place what you have called the Macadam road, I could visualize it better.  
______________________________________________

Bryan

So, you would have us believe that Brown and Shelly both got the location of the photo wrong, and the camera man climbed the water tower to tke the picture and ws pointed at a different hole altogether, and that there was actually a water tower there when the course was just being cleared.

Give me a break Bryan. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I am just trying to figure it out and am not married to any particular theory at this point.  But so far it seems that your interpretation does not match what I see in the photos.  Among other reasons, way too much of the area behind the ridge is visible.   I've asked you repeatedly to explain this and various other points, but you haven't yet done so, have you?

As for the captions, Brown and Shelly were no more there when the photo was taken than you or I.   They may have had a contemporaneous source for the caption or they may not have.  I don't know and neither do you.  Besides, I don't see a world of difference between conveniently discarding part of the Brown caption as you do vs. throwing the whole thing out and starting from scratch.  There were two equally high areas, the sixth hole and the one by the water tower, and both were about the same elevation.

While you call my assumptions (identified as such) flights of fancy, you seem to be making quite a few of your own. Perhaps you can answer a few questions about them?
- Did Brown and or Shelly have a contemporaneous source for the captions?  If so, then how come you are second guessing Brown as to the presence of the 3rd tee in the photo?
- Obviously a bit of the course was "just being cleared" but how do you know the whole course was "just being cleared" at the time the photo was taken?  PV was built in stages.  Was the entire property cleared or was it cleared in stages?  I don't know and I assume you don't either.
- I assume you agree that there was a tower built at some point.  If so, when did they build the tower?  Do you suppose they had a need for a water tower by the time they started seeding?  
-How do you know the photo was taken when the course was just being
- Thank you for posting the log image.  Now that you have done so, I trust you can see the difference in perspective from photographing logs from the same level and photographing from above them? If the photo was taken from standing at the level of the logs, then the lens was a wide angle, which you don't seem to think at all.



Don't know if it was the same negative, but while I haven't done an overlay it appears to be the same picture.  The second is of such lower quality that it could have been a photocopy.  

What kind of camera do you suppose was used?  A Kodak Brownie perhaps?

Could be, but I have no way of knowing.  The original brownie took a square photo.  Very early 1900's it was 2 1/2 by 4 1/2.  The photo is the brown book is pretty close to 2 1/2 to 4 1/2, but not quite.  

My premise that the field of view was 45 degrees seems tp be wrong.  So, I'm going with a narrower field of view looking more up the 4th.

I don't know.  Here is a link to a couple of photos taken with a Browning 2A which I looks wider than you are assuming.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43063706@N02/4418158650/in/set-72157624862754961/lightbox/

[JESII]

_______________________________________________________________________

Jim,

You said you thought the line I drew was "pretty good"  Which line, and "pretty good" in relation to what?  

Can you tell me on the photo where this drop from 150 feet down to 90 feet begins and ends?   Because I don't see it?

Basically I am trying to determine where you place the edge of the ravine.  Perhaps if you told me where in the photo you would place what you have called the Macadam road, I could visualize it better.  
______________________________________________

I think it's a pretty good frame of reference for the JAB image with the exception being that his picture doesn't go as far right as the water...or to say it better, I think the water is obscured by the trees in the intermediate foreground-far right (the big spruce(s)). If anything, I would move the camera position to the right, and it's center focus to the left a bit.

While the whole cross section is somewhat sloped, you're asking where the steepest part is, rather where it begins. I think it begins pretty close to the intersection of the sand road and runs towards those thicker three evergreens under the 1 1/4 marker. They look to me to be on the opposite bank of the ravine...would anyone disagree that they are on a slope opposite the downslope in the near right side of the photo?

I would place the macadam road fairly close to the sandy road...but I have no reason to believe they're the same because I doubt Crump would have felt the need to retain the sandy road in his design...did he want water front homes below there? Could be! If anything, I think the sandy road is running at a different angle than todays macadam road. If the sandy road is running in this image towards 1:30 I would guess the macadam road runs at 2:00 or 2:30.



I know you asked this of Bryan, but I'm curious where he said the third tee is not in the Brown picture. Did he?