[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I happen to think that the discovery process could be purer without preconceived notions and outside influences.

While the available data/info base that TEPaul possesses could be valueable, the terms of sharing/release are too onerous, and erroneous or flawed information might lead us in the wrong direction.

I think starting from scratch provides us with a more open or inquisitive nature.

Remember too, that TEPaul was incorrect and/or uninformed on a number of issues.

So perhaps fending for ourselves, while time consuming and possibly leading to dead ends, will result in interesting discoveries.

From a "smell test" perspective, I can't imagine GAC buying the land in Oct/Nov 1912, then immediately commencing clearing on the holes slated for greatness.  I can't imagine his purchasing the property without having some preconceived design concepts under his belt, whether he had them independent of others or with the help of others.

Why did he choose that 184 acre parcel from amongst all the acres available to him ?

How did he know where to clear ?

How did he know where holes 1-4 and 18 would go, so quickly ?

It was reported that he purchased the land, by himself in Oct/Nov of 1912.
In March 1913 it was reported that clearing had been undertaken months ago.

What novice designs a course overnight ?

And, not just any course, but a course for the ages, the # 1 course in all of golf ?

By accident ?  In a hurry ?  By luck ?

I have a hard time accepting that he first began to design the course AFTER the purchase, especially in light of the fact that clearing for his holes began so soon after the purchase.

If he didn't have a plan, how would they know where to clear ?

And, what of the map of Camden County, requested in 1910, about two years before the purchase ?

Did he never obtain it ? Discard it, or use it to develop a plan ?

Some say that we'll never know.

I only know that we'll never know if we don't investigate.

If we accept the status quo, which some, including yourself, want to protect, we'll never find the truth.

That's why the unencumbered exercise of due diligence is so important.

While you can be an important contributor, you're research and conclusions are agenda driven... namely, to protect and promote the status quo.

Rather than investigate Colt's agenda in 1911 you want to deny that he left Toronto or Detroit.
How open minded is that ?

Rather than investigate the 1927 Newspaper article and article in the American Golfer, you want to dismiss them as unsubstantiated or uncorroborated.

Is that being open minded ?

Your entire effort on this thread has been to protect the status quo rather than seek enlightening information.

So, do you really want to try to "figure out" what happened at Pine Valley or do you just want to protect the Status Quo ?

Do you want to fixate on your pre-determined conclusion and look for evidence that supports it, while rejecting information that challenges/refutes it ?

Can you be objective ?

To date, you haven't been able to demonstrate that quality/ability.

Are you willing to begin afresh, NOW ?

[DMoriarty]

Turning to the substance (if you want to call it that) of Mike's posts, things have become even more ridiculous.

- Recall that Mike pretended to know that the white building in one of the old photos was Sumner Ireland's house.   Yet according to the Shelly book, Ireland's house was to the northeast of the course, while the house Cirba claims is definitely Ireland's is northwest of most of the course.  Facts don't matter when you are pretending you have all the answers.  

-  According to the Shelly book, Ireland's house was overlooking the course, which doesn't seem likely if the house Mike thinks is the Ireland's was level with and/or below much of PV.  So Mike pretends the house is higher than it is. More than that, he unctuously and condescendingly lectures me on the elevation of the house, writing that if I think the the home was at 140 feet, then I "have no ability to read a topographical map and should recuse [myself]."
   Yet look at the images he posted above, the ones he eloquently labeled "thing 1" and "thing 2." The Google Earth elevations are right on the bottom of his images! The first house, the one he is sure must be Ireland's house, has an elevation of 140 ft.  The second has an elevation of 89 ft.  
   Did he really not understand or eve look at his own images? It seems so. I guess such details don't matter when you are pretending you have figured it all out.  Something tells me he will not "recuse" himself like he suggested I do, for if competence was a requirement to stay, he'd have been gone years ago.

-  It gets worse.  Cirba claims I misrepresented his interpretation.  I did not.  I guess Cirba has not yet figured out that whilethe two "things" in the pictures immediately above may be the two houses he pointed out in post 1533, but they are NOT TO WHAT HE POINTED IN POST 1534. More specifically, the  second "thing" is NOT TO WHAT CIRBA is pointing in his post 134.    So his interpretation is bogus.  It is not only not a house in the old pic, but his house in on google earth isn't even the same house from one google earth image to the next.  Yet he goes on about the "irony" of how I have proved myself wrong?  

-  Perhaps he should spend less time falsely representing my intentions and my motivations and actually pay some attention to the FACTS.  He is so caught up in telling everyone about how he feels picked on, that he didn't even bother to correct the errors in his analysis I pointed out last time.  Instead of dealing with accurate facts and sound analysis, he'd rather repeatedly jump to the wrong conclusions and just run as fast as he can in one wrong direction after another.

-   As for his constant accusation that I am only here to prove him wrong, he should stop flattering himself and face reality. The reality is that Mike is horrible at this yet he always insists he has all the answers, and anyone even decent at it will inevitably be proven wrong again and again.   Rather than learn, Mike fights it all the way, and in the process wastes all of our time.   It'd be like me entering scratch golf tournament after scratch golf tournament and playing courses I couldn't play at a 6 hour pace, yet then accusing everyone of cheating and being out to get me when I inevitably got my ass kicked.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Since we're off on a Sumner Ireland tangent, can those who profess to know, tell me who Sumner Ireland was?  And, how we know the Crump bought the land from him/her?

A quick search on GCA suggests that MacWood made the claim in his opinion piece:

Satisfied, Crump purchased the 184 acres from the landowner, Sumner Ireland.

What was his source for this "fact".

Mike says:

In 1919, G. Sumner Ireland, formerly an instructor in Army aviation, founded the Curtiss Eastern Airline Corp., opened two flying schools, one in Gloucester, and one in Pine Valley, NJ.

 

Why would G. Sumner Ireland have owned 184 acres in the pine barrens between being in Army aviation and founding an airline corp?

Others have suggested that Ireland owned Lumberton Sand Co.  What is the source of this claim.

To inject a little humor into all the drang und sturm, the following was the headline of a story from the 1917 NY Times:

SUMNER IRELAND ELOPED.; Advertising Man and Miss Humphrey Surprised Their Parents.

July 17, 1914,

Wonder how he fit elopement into his busy schedule.  Not to mention being in Army aviation, owning a sand company and starting an airline, he was also an advertising man.

But, then there was the following subsequently in the Times:

TOO YOUNG TO ELOPE.; Mr. and Mrs. Humphreys Hope FiveYear-Old Daughter Is Still Single.

They married young in those days, but that young!   

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Re post 1524,

If David's post is from the same position as the Brown/Shelley photo, then the area that is the 4th fairway is not cleared in any sense in David's photo.  It looks cleared near where the man in the foreground is standing, but not in the middle distance.  How can we have a reasonable discussion if you can't see such an obvious fact.

You claim the stick routing topo is from March.  David says it is from April.  Which is right?  What's your source?

Finally, re this quote:

Sure didn't look in the topo that they knew where they wanted to put the first seven holes, let alone be ready to seed them.

What are you talking about ?
The first four (4) holes are the holes that exist today.
That sounds like they knew where they wanted to put them, wouldn't you agree ?

I said the first seven holes.  There are two greens for 3, and consequently two centrelines for 4.  Five is directly across the stream.  Six and Seven are nowhere near where they ended up.  If 5, 6 and 7 were initially built and seeded as on the topo map, then I'd agree with you.  Otherwise, I don't.  Is the glass half full, or half empty?  Does it really matter?

[Bryan Izatt]

Re your post 1525 and whether the trees were scrawny or bushy, dense or sparse, all I can say is, whatever.

Re the following quote:

Google Earth does not have enough resolution to distinguish the RR track elevation from the elevation immediately adjacent.  The old picture from the 18th tee shows the RR track above the pond next to the 18th fairway. 
Is that photo incorrect?

No, just Jeff Brauer's, Mike Cirba's and your interpretation of the spacial relationships between the RR tracks and the golf course.
Those ponds were man-made subsequent to the purchase.
There's quite a bit of distance between the tracks and the begining of the 18th fairway.

Google earth does have the resolution to indicate the elevation of the tracks and the 18th fairway, and the 18th fairway is at a higher elevation  ....................

Brauer made the absurd claim that the RR tracks were 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway, despite Google Earth readings to the contrary.

Nice avoidance.  Does the picture show the RR track elevated above the pond?  Yes or no.  Is the pond at the same level as the stream that preceded it?

Could you tell us what resolution Google Earth has?  Why don't you research it before you make such absurd claims?  You're all wet on this one.  GE cannot distinguish the elevation of entities as small as the RR track relative to the surrounding ground.  You are wrong. 

Re your concave/convex landforms, I now see from the following picture what you mean by the concave rim.  But, I don't see concave descending terrain, nor do I see any convex terrain in the picture looking back to the 6th tee/5th green.  As to seeing it in the Brown photo, I am completely mystified as to what concave/convex things you are seeing or not seeing there, and what the point is.

P.S. Nice of David to post them for you.



Re the following quote:

I'm not pushing the 6th green as the camera position.

I tend to think that it was taken from somewhere between the elbow of # 6 and the begining of the 6th fairway.

Well, it's nice to see you are starting to inch toward the elbow.  Why not go whole hog and just go to the elbow.  It really won't hurt too much.  I'm not sure I understand your blind adherence to the Brown/Shelly caption, we have all found instances of errors in publications from days gone by. Is it your agenda to absolutely believe everything that Brown/Shelly wrote as the gospel truth?

Re the following quote"

While you're in myth busting mode, would you agree that Crump buying 300 acres years before, or inheriting a 300 acre hunting property from his father are myths too?

I'm not ready to discard that GAC might have had access to the land prior to official purchase.
The 1927 article raises valid questions.
Or, do you think the author made up the story without any basis in fact ?

Nice avoidance again.  I didn't say anything about Crump having access to the land or not.  I asked whether you think that Crump inherited or purchased 300 acres years before 1912 as stated in two articles.  Are these two articles ones that you don't blindly accept as you do the Brown/Shelly caption?

...........................

As a former co-worker used to say to me when I returned to work from holidays:

"It's not that we missed you, but, we did notice that you were gone."

Can't imagine why it came to mind at this point.   

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

I don't know much about Sumner Ireland, but I'm pretty sure his family had money well before him from the looks of reports in the Society pages, and the Mining company and any number of things such as a horse farm were likely well established family businesses.

However, he did seem to be quite the pioneer in the field of aviation and was a Captain, and Google searches such as;

"G. Sumner Ireland" Curtiss aviation

or, better yet;

"G. Sumner Ireland" Curtiss Pine Valley

gives a pretty good sense of things.

Here's his Pine Valley airfield in 1926 looking out towards the golf course in the right half of the photo.




Patrick,

I'm perfectly willing and open to any ideas here, but it seems to me that you've had your mind made up since page one, even when presented by eye-witness evidence such as Tillinghast's accounts.   However, from the get-go, rather than accept what Tillinghast said about the land, about the use of topos, about how his good friend Crump came upon the land when they were riding together on a train, you've sought to discredit him to advance your own ideas.

So, I'm not sure how long I'm willng to put up with David's daily insult-athon here as it's gotten beyond ridiculous and bizarre.   Perhaps since he's posting your pics you might have a word with him?

As far as new information, how willing are you to accept that the area in question was not all dense woods and forest back then?   For instance, in this 1926 photo I just posted most of the land is indeed pasture land.   How willing are you to accept that the land in question may very well have been mined for sand prior to Crump's purchase, as evidenced by significant differences between the topographical maps of 1898 and those subsequent, as well as the fact that the land was supposedly purchased from Sumner's mining company?

As seen in this modern Google aerial which shows the airfield in relation to the golf course, and to the buildings in question in the Brown photo, a lot of overgrowth has happened to those pastures over the past 80 years.

[Mike Cirba]

And, to avoid what I'm sure will be an ensuing challenge to the validity of the location and photo, please be assured that I've already checked it out.

I'm not sure yet which house(es?) were Sumner's across the tracks to the northeast referred to in Shelly's book,  but I'm quite sure he owned all of this land, several hundreds of acres in question to the northeast and probably all around Pine Valley.




Here, you can see some of the golf course land in the distance of the first photo, including what I believe might be the water tower.




Here's a couple of views from Google Earth from the airfield to the golf course to give you a sense of what you're seeing in the photo above.   The  first one is also useful as it shows the features seen in the distance in the Brown and Crump photos;

[JESII]

I didn't think this thread could make slower progress and then Pat's post #1537 popped up...

There is a 300 yard stretch of track from near the 17h tee to near the 14th green that would have revealed a view across the bog up into the hills...the same ones that are invisible from next to the 17th green. The passenger would have a panoramic view up the valley the 17th hole now sits in, the long low dune between the current 17th and 16th holes, the sweeping valley between 16 and 15 and the impressive ridgeline that rises up 60 or 70 feet from the 15th hole to the high elevation of the current 12th and 13th holes and the 14th tee. There is no question about this.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'm not sure why Pat won't just acknowledge that fact so we can all move on.

If there had been mining operations at the site, as the differences in the topos from 1898 to subsequent ones would certainly suggest (as well as the fact Crump bought the first 184 acres of the property from the Lumberton Mining Co.), then other areas would certainly have been visible as well.

It really is probably the most stupid, non-productive argument in the history of GCA.

Thanks for bringing a dose of reality.

[DMoriarty]

Cirba,  You steal my image by downloading it, moving it to your host server, and posting it in your posts as if it were your own, yet you find my hostility toward you bizarre?    What is bizarre is your complete lack of common courtesy, common sense, and honesty, as well as your hypocrisy. You show no qualms about stealing and using my image yet you go on about how important it is that we respect the clubs wishes regarding their stuff.  Hypocritical and sleazy.

If you want less blowback from me then delete the images you took without my permission, and refrain from taking and posting my stuff in the future.    

Also, it would sure help if you would stop posting false and misleading information as if it were fact.   You still have not bothered to correct your numerous misrepresentations about the objects visible in the old pictures.  Your refusal to acknowledge your errors doesn't make them go away.

And look at this latest series of posts, for goodness sake.    The Airfield is the Hagley Image is NOT field you claim it is on the Google Earth aerial.  The Google earth image is a bit over a quarter mile from the course.  The image from the Hagley is many many times that away from what you claim is the course, but it is so far away it is impossible to say for sure!

Why do you continue to throw this crap out there as if it were fact?  What compels you to keep pretending you have figured it all out when obviously have no clue what you are doing or saying?  It is getting ridiculous.  All you do is waste our time with this nonsense and these tangents.

And these are not meant as insults, but as honest assessments of what is ongoing here.  You should consider them.

And you should spend some time correcting the many errors you have made in your last few posts.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

In the history of this site there has never been anyone, ever, who requested other individuals not use any materials they posted here in the public domain for our collective discussion, dissemination, and hypothesizing.

You had no objection to anyone else using it, only me, and others have done so yet you raised no objection.

If you don't want it in the public domain, delete it from here.

You cannot arbitrarily decide who gets to use it and who doesn't.  

If I see you delete your copy here, I'll consider that you are taking your marbles and going home, and I'll be happy to honor your request to delete any reproductions I may have copied or posted of the image  as well.  

[DMoriarty]

This is getting so ridiculous it needs graphics to express. 

Mike posted an oblique of "Pine Valley Field" from the Hagley collection (without proper attribution of course) and then posted a zoomed in version from the same oblique which he claims the course is visible.   Then, incredibly, he posts a google earth aerial of a field across the railroad tracks and the course, and he tells us that that the google aerial gives us an idea of what we are seeing in the Hagley aerial.   

Then in another post he haughtily assures us that everything in kosher with his comparison:  "And, to avoid what I'm sure will be an ensuing challenge to the validity of the location and photo, please be assured that I've already checked it out."

Well I feel better.  If Mike assures us he has checked it out, then it must be accurate, right?   Of course not.  The Hagley oblique and the google aerial have nothing to do with each other.  The field Mike claims is the Pine Valley Air Field on the Google image is most certainly not the "Pine Valley Field" in the Hagley Oblique.   

Here is the Hagley oblique, on which I have circled the hangar with the word "Curtiss" on top at the corner of the field.  The red square represents the location in the photo of Mike's zoomed in portion . . . .



Notice that they are not anywhere near each other?    Well, even though he assures us he checked it out, Mike apparently did not notice this.

Here again, is Mike's Pine Valley Field and where it sits, just a bit over a 1/4 of a mile to the course.   



Yet he thinks that those photos show the same thing.  To be honest, I am at a loss as to how Mike can even delude himself with some of this stuff.  Is this a practical joke or something?

[DMoriarty]

You had no objection to anyone else using it, only me, and others have done so yet you raised no objection.

That is up to me.  I don't need to explain my decisions to you, but you may want to consider your own behavior.  No one else has shown an abusive pattern of clogging up the threads with unnecessarily repetitive posts of the same stuff and no one else scribbles like a child all over my stuff, and no one else has ever outright defied my reasonable request as to how my stuff can and cannot be used.  If you didn't act as you do, I would probably consider allowing you limited use of my stuff as well.  But as it is, no dice.  

It is my image and I control it.   You have stolen it.

If you don't want it in the public domain, delete it from here.

Come on Mike.  You playing lawyer is even more ridiculous than you playing historical analyst.   You have NO IDEA what "public domain" means and no clue how (or whether) posting an image on the internet impacts copyright protection.  So stop with the PRETENDING.    YOU shouldn't throw around terms you do not understand, and you shouldn't PRETEND to speak knowledgeably on topics that are obviously not in your grasp.

Would you take some of Ran's photographs and reviews and repetitively post them all over the internet without his permission?  Would you steal an IMO piece and post it wherever you liked regardless of the author's wishes?  Did Ran and the IMO authors relinquish their rights by posting their words and images here?  Are their words and images in what you call "the public domain," and therefore available for anyone to steal without license?  

This is an absolute joke, and just like your historical analysis.   You should really quit PRETENDING you know what you are talking about when you clearly do not.  

You cannot arbitrarily decide who gets to use it and who doesn't.

 

Wrong again.  I can decide who gets to copy and reproduce my creations, and who doesn't.  You obviously have absolutely no grasp of what copyright entails.

If I see you delete your copy here, I'll consider that you taking your marbles and running home, and I'll be happy to honor your request to delete any reproductions I may have posted of the image  as well.

 

I can post whatever graphics I want here, and without relinquishing my rights to those graphics and without licensing a knucklehead like you the right to copy and reproduce my stuff.  You have stolen my image.  You downloaded it and have posting it without my permission as if it was your own.    I'll not meet any conditions in order to get you to act with honesty and integrity and according to the law.  

Now delete my image from all of your posts.

Mine was and is a simple and reasonable request.  Do what is right and you can get back to misrepresenting the historical record and I can get back to trying to set it straight.

[Mike Cirba]

Do you guys hear this?   Is this what this site has devolved into?


Ran and/or Ben,

Please delete my profile.

Your discussion group is now a site where participants are threatened with legal action for discussing golf course architecture.

Sorry your site has turned into this.

Best Regards,
Mike

[DMoriarty]

There you go again trying to martyr yourself by misrepresenting my posts.  Where did I threaten legal action?    All I ask is that you respect my wishes and my rights with respect to my contributions.

As for your latest dramatic exit, no need to make a big scene.  You've left the site so many times you obviously know how to do it yourself.  But instead of the drama, why don't you try something entirely different?

1. Quit using my stuff when I have explicitly told you that you do not have permission to do so.
2. Quit puking out the same source material over and over again without any actual novel analysis.
3. Quit stating things as fact when you are really just guessing.
4. Admit when you are wrong and set the record straight.
4. Quit commenting on my and others intentions and stick to the substance.

For my part, I'd be glad to abide by the same things.  I already abide by the first four.   As for the last I'd be glad to try and stick to the substance and leave my low opinion of you personally out of it, provided you do the same with regard to me.

[DMoriarty]

Or not.
______________________________________


Bryan,   

1.  I am still curious about why we can see so much of the background beyond the initial ridge in both photos.  In the second photo (with the man standing) there are substantial trees all along the ridge, yet we can still see plenty of the background.  And it is not as if we are seeing miles and miles to a very distant horizon on those old black and white images. We can make out at least some details along the horizon line, so it the horizon line cannot be that far away. Let's see if I can show you what I mean regarding the background visibility past the ridge . . .  

I created a rough ridge line as shown on the upper photo below.  I then used Google Earth's nifty tools to hover the ridge line above the ground at what I consider to be a very modest height for trees, only three meters, which is only about 10 feet.  The lower image was created using GE's eye level function from a point near the dogleg (then cropped horizontally.)    Look how little of the area behind the ridge is visible in these renderings.  It in no way compares to what we  see in the old photos, does it?



Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you ever trying to explain why we can see so much of the background.  Any ideas? 

2.  As for the second pic (with the man) I am not so sure I would assume that he was standing right at the edge of cleared land.  Given the state of the land he is overlooking, it seems more likely he is standing on a road to me. 

[JESII]

He could easily be standing on the third tee looking back towards the second tee area...this is a slightly different angle than the one I think the JAB book photo from the 6th tee shows, but the background sure does look similar.

What about the terrain does not match the topo? I don't have it in front of me? Should be on a ridge looking across a steep drop and then a gradual continuation of downslope to the tracks 350 yards away or so...

[DMoriarty]

He could easily be standing on the third tee looking back towards the second tee area...this is a slightly different angle than the one I think the JAB book photo from the 6th tee shows, but the background sure does look similar.

I am not so sure this works.   Over the distance were talking your "slightly different angle" would result in a drastically different background.   To get such a similar background, the camera would have to be have to been very close to on the same angle and on the same approximate line.  The line from the6th fairway dogleg over the 3rd tee is toward the corner of the short course.  Even the direct line from the 6th green over the 3rd tee misses the course all together and would result in a very different background than the one you guys have suggested.   

If the second camera had been at the 3rd tee, directly facing the 2nd tee, then to get the same background the original picture would have to have been taken from 150 yards to the west of the 6th green.

Does this make sense?

What about the terrain does not match the topo? I don't have it in front of me? Should be on a ridge looking across a steep drop and then a gradual continuation of downslope to the tracks 350 yards away or so...

Based on the topo and on Google Earth, I agree with your description of what we should be seeing, but would add that the drop from the 3rd tee to the RR tracks is quite substantial --a 70+ foot drop.   I don't think this photo depicts a gradual 70 foot drop to the RR tracks.   I think looks like we are looking across at trees on a ridge of about the same magnitude and at about the same distance as the ridge in the other photo. Here they are again. I've straightened the original photo based on the horizon line of the second, and roughly matched up what details, so except in the immediate foreground the guidelines should generally correspond on each photo.

[JESII]

David,

I don't think anyone other than Pat thinks the third tee is anywhere near the center of the JAB picture, do you?

Do you think the two features in the background are the same? The sandy patch and the house?

If the two different cameras happened to be centered on a close spot in the distance, just by coincidence, the background wouldn't be all that much different, would it? The corner of the dogleg on 6 isn't all that drastically different an angle than from 3 tee if the center point 1000 yards away is close? 10 - 15 degrees?

I wish I had paid attention in Computer Science class to be able to do the stuff you guys do...

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't think anyone other than Pat thinks the third tee is anywhere near the center of the JAB picture, do you?

I have serious doubts that we are anywhere near the correct area, so it is difficult to say.  But if this was the correct part of the course and if I had to guess,  I would put the third tee middle left of the photo, for reasons already explained.   

Do you think the two features in the background are the same? The sandy patch and the house?

 

I am confident the sandy patch is the same.  What may be the white house on the first pic is overexposed, so it is more difficult to say, but a white house could definitely cause this on a pic exposed as aggressively as that one.  What convinces me as much as anything is the diagonal break between the different trees and also the trees on the horizon.

If the two different cameras happened to be centered on a close spot in the distance, just by coincidence, the background wouldn't be all that much different, would it? The corner of the dogleg on 6 isn't all that drastically different an angle than from 3 tee if the center point 1000 yards away is close? 10 - 15 degrees?

This would be a pretty incredible and unlikely coincidence if you ask me, and you would still have the issues of what looks like a ridge on the second photo, the match in proportions of the general features, etc.  In both photos the ground appears to drop significantly initially and then rise to a very similar ridge line.   I cannot imagine how this could be interpreted as a 70+ yard drop.   

Where in the second photo would you put the RR line?   It is less than a quarter mile from the 3rd tee, and it seems we can see gaps in trees for around this distance.  So shouldn't we be looking down on the RR tracks less than 400 yards away?   Shouldn't we at least have some sign of them?   

[DMoriarty]

Also, Jim, you wouldn't get the same background vertically because in the first pic almost all the background would be blocked by the 160 to 140 ft ridge, on which the features in question supposedly sit.   In the second pic we are about as high, but have no intervening ridge, so we should see the entire vertical rise of the background, not just the same cross section we see in the first pic. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

He could easily be standing on the third tee looking back towards the second tee area...this is a slightly different angle than the one I think the JAB book photo from the 6th tee shows, but the background sure does look similar.

Jim,

I don't see the terrain matching.

What about the terrain does not match the topo? I don't have it in front of me? Should be on a ridge looking across a steep drop and then a gradual continuation of downslope to the tracks 350 yards away or so...

Forget the topo, the photo doesn't match the view from # 3 tee

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Re post 1524,

If David's post is from the same position as the Brown/Shelley photo, then the area that is the 4th fairway is not cleared in any sense in David's photo. 


That's a pretty big IF isn't it ?

It looks cleared near where the man in the foreground is standing, but not in the middle distance.  How can we have a reasonable discussion if you can't see such an obvious fact.

Since you can't see below the man's feet, as you can in the Brown/Shelly photo, I don't know how you can make your claim that the land wasn't cleared in that area.

You claim the stick routing topo is from March.  David says it is from April.  Which is right?  What's your source?

The writing on the stick topo.

Finally, re this quote:

Sure didn't look in the topo that they knew where they wanted to put the first seven holes, let alone be ready to seed them.

What are you talking about ?
The first four (4) holes are the holes that exist today.
That sounds like they knew where they wanted to put them, wouldn't you agree ?

I said the first seven holes.  There are two greens for 3, and consequently two centrelines for 4.  Five is directly across the stream.  Six and Seven are nowhere near where they ended up.  If 5, 6 and 7 were initially built and seeded as on the topo map, then I'd agree with you.  Otherwise, I don't.  Is the glass half full, or half empty?  Does it really matter?

Yes, he got it right, right out of the gate on holes 1-4.
And you think that happened overnight, shortly after he bought the land ? /

[Patrick_Mucci]

Re your post 1525 and whether the trees were scrawny or bushy, dense or sparse, all I can say is, whatever.

Re the following quote:

Google Earth does not have enough resolution to distinguish the RR track elevation from the elevation immediately adjacent.  The old picture from the 18th tee shows the RR track above the pond next to the 18th fairway.  
Is that photo incorrect?

No, just Jeff Brauer's, Mike Cirba's and your interpretation of the spacial relationships between the RR tracks and the golf course.
Those ponds were man-made subsequent to the purchase.
There's quite a bit of distance between the tracks and the begining of the 18th fairway.

Google earth does have the resolution to indicate the elevation of the tracks and the 18th fairway, and the 18th fairway is at a higher elevation  ....................

Brauer made the absurd claim that the RR tracks were 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway, despite Google Earth readings to the contrary.

Nice avoidance.

It's not avoidance, it's correcting your statement.  

Does the picture show the RR track elevated above the pond?  Yes or no.  

The issue isn't the pond, it's the golf course

Is the pond at the same level as the stream that preceded it?

NO

Could you tell us what resolution Google Earth has?  Why don't you research it before you make such absurd claims?  You're all wet on this one.  GE cannot distinguish the elevation of entities as small as the RR track relative to the surrounding ground.  You are wrong.  

No, you're wrong.

The elevation of the tracks and the 18th fairway is clearly ascertainable on google earth.
In addition, I was there just last week.
When was the last time you were there to observe the physical conditions in person ?

Re your concave/convex landforms, I now see from the following picture what you mean by the concave rim.  But, I don't see concave descending terrain, nor do I see any convex terrain in the picture looking back to the 6th tee/5th green.  As to seeing it in the Brown photo, I am completely mystified as to what concave/convex things you are seeing or not seeing there, and what the point is.

You've got to be kidding.

Look at the landform on the right side of the photo.
It's convex, not concave.
Look at the landform of the 5th green/6th tee, it's convex, not concave.
Now look at the landform starting at the rim down to the ground below, it's concave.
Please tell me you understand the difference.

P.S. Nice of David to post them for you.



Re the following quote:

I'm not pushing the 6th green as the camera position.

I tend to think that it was taken from somewhere between the elbow of # 6 and the begining of the 6th fairway.

Well, it's nice to see you are starting to inch toward the elbow.  

I said, from the very begining that I thought the photo was taken from somewhere between the elbow and the begining of the 6th fairway.
You either don't pay attention or have a short memory.

Why not go whole hog and just go to the elbow.  It really won't hurt too much.  I'm not sure I understand your blind adherence to the Brown/Shelly caption, we have all found instances of errors in publications from days gone by. Is it your agenda to absolutely believe everything that Brown/Shelly wrote as the gospel truth?

If Shelly was the only source, I could see your point, but Brown gives a similar frame of reference.
In addition, that right side shoulder is convex, leading me to believe its the footpad for the 6th tee/5th green.

Re the following quote"

While you're in myth busting mode, would you agree that Crump buying 300 acres years before, or inheriting a 300 acre hunting property from his father are myths too?

Could be, but, as David explained, the Crump family may have had usage rights, rights that could be passed down at death.

I'm not ready to discard that GAC might have had access to the land prior to official purchase.
The 1927 article raises valid questions.
Or, do you think the author made up the story without any basis in fact ?

Nice avoidance again.

Again, it's not an avoidance, just a statement of premise.
I'm not willing to rule out alternative arrangements as you seem so willing to do.

I didn't say anything about Crump having access to the land or not.

Then you're just being a wise guy who's sole interest is arguing with me.
David explained the usage issue, yet you conveniently ignore the possibility that it survived Crump's father's death.

I asked whether you think that Crump inherited or purchased 300 acres years before 1912 as stated in two articles.  

Are these two articles ones that you don't blindly accept as you do the Brown/Shelly caption?

My acceptance of Brown's/Shelly's statement is based upon their independent declarations and my familiarity with the property, property that you've never set a foot on.

The fact is that you're almost as agenda driven as Cirba, you just don't make as many wild unsubstantiated statements as he does.

Since you're adept at photo interpretation, tell me, are those RR tracks flush to the ground ?

Is your view from the tracks completely blocked for the entire length of the 17th fairway, up to the 17th green, over to the 18th tee and down to the 18th fairway.

Are the RR tracks 15-18 feet above the golf course for their ENTIRE length between # 18 green and # 14 green as Cirba declared ?

YES OR NO ?

Are the RR tracks 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway as Brauer declared ?

YES or NO ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

In the history of this site there has never been anyone, ever, who requested other individuals not use any materials they posted here in the public domain for our collective discussion, dissemination, and hypothesizing.

Mike, Didn't TEPaul and/or Paul Turner make the same request ?

You had no objection to anyone else using it, only me, and others have done so yet you raised no objection.

If you don't want it in the public domain, delete it from here.

You cannot arbitrarily decide who gets to use it and who doesn't.  

If I see you delete your copy here, I'll consider that you are taking your marbles and going home, and I'll be happy to honor your request to delete any reproductions I may have copied or posted of the image  as well.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()