[Bryan Izatt]

It says the 3rd tee.  But, let me now be the doubter on this one. Why can't it be looking to the southwest towards the green and the 6th fairway.  Wouldn't most people taking a picture from the 3rd tee point it in the direction of where they thought the 3rd green would be?   




We have this other picture, supposedly from the 3rd tee, presumably further into the clearing process, although there are other issues with this caption.




And, we have this picture from 1915 of the 3rd hole taken from somewhere near the tee looking to the green.  Looks like the 6th fairway cleared on the ridge.  Arguably the 3 pictures could all be from the same location pointing in the same direction.





 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

That's why I think accessing the back of those photos might prove invalueable, despite Jim Sullivan's protests to the contrary.

In Jim's world, did the person writing the caption "lie" or just make a mistake ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why do we even bother.  Re, the following, we have all answered in our own way. 

NO, you haven't.
The question requires the pinpointing of the location from which GAC allegedly saw these rolling hills and valleys and noone to date has identified those locations, especially in the context of sighting them from a train traveling east at 60+mph.

Jim doesn't even understand the relevance of the direction the train was moving.

Why do you always seem to miss the answers?

Because you haven't given them.
You haven't been specific, choosing instead to be deliberately vague because you don't have a clue as to what's visible from the tracks, prefering to rely on satellite images taken from 20+ miles above the site.

Also, I've asked you, Jim, Mike and Bryan to pinpoint for us, Crump's location on the RR tracks, as he was heading East at 60mph, when his "chance glimpse" revealed rolling hills and valleys.

To date, not one of you have addressed, let alone answered that question.

To give you a different perspective of rolling hills, consider the following elevation profile, which you ignored when I posted it before. It is of the landform parallel to the track.  So, as you would have Crump's view blocked by the landform as he wizzed by on the train, do you think he may have noticed that the land form blocking his view was rolling in nature - flat as he passed the swamp along the 18th, then a rising hill, then a rolling landform after that before he passed the end of the property at the 14th. 


It's NOT rolling in nature, it's a sharp incline.
You would know that if you were familiar with the land.
Aerials don't provide ground level, line of sight visuals, especially when you have no concept of what the land looks like in person.
Stop pretending that you do and stop pretending that you're qualified to comment on the line of sight visuals from the tracks.

 Do you think a moderately intelligent person might infer that the hills rolled away from the tracks as well as along them.  Especially given some of the places that Jim has identified where he might look a bit inland?

Did it EVER occur to you that Jim is wrong ?  Are you basing your entire argument upon your interpretation of Jim's understanding of the land ?
Bryan, It's obvious, that you don't know what you're talking about due to your total lack of personal familiarity with the site.

I've asked you time and time again, to pinpoint where GAC was at that exact moment that he stole his "chance glimpse" of rolling hills and valleys, yet, to date, you've failed to identify that location.  So, I'll ask you again, where was he when he had his light bulb moment ?
Please feel free to use the 1931 aerial I posted to assist you.

[JESII]

Pat,

Why would someone have to pinpoint the exact location? How big is a pinpoint? The onus is on you to prove it could not have happened as opposed to you thinking it did not happen and the fact that you and Macwood have spent about 60 pages repeating each of your favorite claims doesn't make any of them true.



Bryan,

Not at all...I think we're discussing why and how that picture could be from the 3rd tee. David seems not to trust it but it rings true to me. The two distinguising features in the background sure make it certain the camera was pointed in a similar direction althought the land in between is so much different (no intervening ridge on the 3rd tee picture) that it makes pretty good sense to me...although the resolution of this shot is abou as bad as the resolution on the Shelly version of the 6th fairway picture we dealt with for a while.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Why would someone have to pinpoint the exact location?

To recreate the alleged view

How big is a pinpoint?

Jim, the answer is partially provided by the terrain, the balance by the description of the view.
Be guided accordingly

The onus is on you to prove it could not have happened as opposed to you thinking it did not happen.

Perhaps you haven't been reading my posts, but, I've provided that information, including photos.
Now, it's your turn.
Tell us, exactly where you think GAC was, when he experienced his "chance glimpse" from a train speeding eastbound at 60+mph, that enabled him to see rolling hills and valleys ?

and the fact that you and Macwood have spent about 60 pages repeating each of your favorite claims doesn't make any of them true.
Only if you're in denial with respect to the physical facts presented.

Bryan,

Not at all...I think we're discussing why and how that picture could be from the 3rd tee.
David seems not to trust it but it rings true to me. The two distinguising features in the background sure make it certain the camera was pointed in a similar direction althought the land in between is so much different (no intervening ridge on the 3rd tee picture) that it makes pretty good sense to me...although the resolution of this shot is abou as bad as the resolution on the Shelly version of the 6th fairway picture we dealt with for a while.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

___________________________________________________

David and Bryan,

I get glossed over while reading the tech posts but it looks like you guys agree that it's impossible to prove which topo may be exactly right or wrong right now, is that accurate or no?

I hate to speak for Bryan, but I think we agree that the 1913 survey has elevations which are generally higher by around 10 feet (or more) than any other survey or data set to which we currently have access.  I also think we agree that this difference is widespread enough across the site that it is very unlikely that the difference can be explained by the construction process.  I think we also generally agree that the shape of the land depicted by the contours on the 1913 map probably reflects the general shape of the ground pre-construction.  Agree with the first part.  I do not put so many caveats as David does in the last sentence.  I wouldn't use "probably" and "general shape".  I think it's better than that, but that there is no way to validate that it is accurate to some tolerance.  In the end it is what was used, so it couldn't have been too far off of reality.

We disagree on whether or not we can reasonably conclude that the absolute elevations on the 1913 were wrong.  As far as I can figure, Bryan has some doubts about the accuracy of the various other sources of information we have (the 1953 survey, the 1/3 data set, the 1/9 NED, the 1/3 NED, the 1 Arc Sec NED) all of which contradict the 1913 map. Yes, I have doubts about the USGS absolute elevations and contours. Not only are they different from the 1913 topo, they are different from each other.  I cannot say that any one of them is accurate as to elevation or contour.  While I share many of his specific concerns about these datasets and maps, it seems to me that at least some of the data points underlying these various data sets are very likely accurate, and so even with the problems I have no qualms about drawing conclusions about the overall accuracy of the absolute elevations on the 1913 map.  It's possible that some are perfectly accurate against some unknown accuracy benchmark, but we have no way of knowing which data points.  And the USGS topos conflict with each other.  So, which data in which map is right?  And, the 1/9 data is 6 to 12 feet lower in the sample area I looked at, compared to the 1/3 data and 1 arc second data.  It's enough for me to question their "absolute" accuracy as a comparative benchmark for thje 1913 topo.  I would agree that the 1913 topo has different elevations than any of the USGS topos.  But, I'm left asking, so what? 

Another thing I assume we agree upon is that there is absolutely no reasonable justification for claiming to a 99.99% certainty that the 1913 map is accurate as to the absolute numbers.   Sure, I'd agree to that limited statement.  Maybe even Jeff would, because I never interpreted him to say that they were accurate to the "absolute numbers", as David calls them.

. . . a dozen or so posts ago you put up an overlay of a current topo and suggested it was strange in some way, I'm curious what it is about it that strikes you? I notice the elevations look lower across the board, is that it?

I think my concerns are similar to Bryan's, I think. As he said, the contours look smoothed and they lack detail. Another concern I have is that I don't know what data  they used to create the data.  Bryan specuates it was the same data used for the 1913 map, but I cannot really think of many reasons why this would be the case.  I think I said the 1953 data as amended over the following years, particularly 1967.  Whatever the data,  the contouring application does not appear to be good for much other than providing a very rough approximation of the lay of the land. Agree.  And, once you lose confidence in what data and how the USGS is presenting it, in the context we are talking about, the more convinced I became that the data and contours in the USGS topos were not useful as an absolute benchmark for 1913.  On this point we disagree.  But, let's move on.  Again, I don't think the absolute elevations lead anywhere useful.

You say the elevations look lower across the board . . . lower than what?   

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm curious as to whether you think the tree lines drawn on the 1913 topo represented where they had been cut back to by March 1913 or where they planned to cut them back to at some point after the topo was draw. 

I don't know.  I don't remember the extent of the tree lines drawn on the map, and they may all be difficult to make out. Was the entire property marked with tree lines, or just the portion where they were first laying out the course?  Is it possible that they had cleared only this portion?   I keep thinking of the two different methods used of surveying.  Perhaps these had something to do with visibility?   I don't remember what they were so I don't know.

Wow, another thing we can agree on!!  I don't know for a certainty either.  But, given the date on the map and the reputed progress on clearing by that point, I'd speculate that the tree lines, at least on the first 4 holes and where the 6th ended up were already there when the surveyor drew the map.

I'd further speculate that that means that Crump knew where he wanted to put the first four holes and probably the 5th before the topo was drawn.  So, I would further speculate that at least some of the early routing/planning was done on the ground and not on topos.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Sigh.  Just let it go.  You are being conciliatory and David is like a pit bull on your arm.  You can shake all you want.  He won't let go.  There will always be a rejoinder.  Be mature, and just let it go.  I respect your knowledge and experience and value your input.  I hope that feels better. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I've asked you several times, and I don't recall an answer, but if you want to continue to discuss how much tree is showing beyond the first ridge, can you tell us how many inches of tree in the picture are showing, how much you think that is in actual feet, and how far away you think they are.  I am referring particularly to the Brown photo.

Jim,

Looking over the first green, the RR tracks are only about 360 yards from middle 3rd tee.   The crest of the ridge in the distances is over 1000 yards beyond that.      

If the the RR tracks are only about 360 yards away, then how come we cannot see them on the right side of the photo?  

How far away do you suppose the trees are beyond the sandy area on the right side of the of the photo?    

I don't think they would completely block the view of the RR, but if these trees completely block the view of the RR, then why wouldn't they block the view from the train?

[Bryan Izatt]

I think it's possible that this picture is pointed in the opposite direction, so this discussion is moot.

I have no way of actually measuring the RR right of way.  The PV deed says their land started 25 feet from the middle of the track.  Plus there was a 10 foot ROW on this side of the tracks from the northwest end to the station.  There was also a 100 foot ROW on the opposite side of the tracks, but I don't know how far that extended.  There is also no indication of how much of the ROWs were cleared.  I suppose you could guesstimate it from the 1918 (?) tee picture.

Jim,

So how far would you estimate it is to the trees just beyond the sandy patch? 

Is a "simple train bed" like a game trail which winds through the trees unnoticed?   Because most of the  train beds I have seen, whether at grade or not, were hardly simple or discrete.  They generally cut a pretty good swath through the forest.  Are you saying that such a swath would not be visible on a photo overlooking such a swath from only 360 yards away?  From around 60 feet above the tracks?

And as you mentioned, it is not just the train bed, but the right of way to get to the station mentioned in the deeds. You don't think that the Sumner-Ireland's (or whatever) were dodging trees on the way to the station, do you?   

I think the RR right of way is marked on the 1913 map.  Bryan, since I am so untrustworthy, do you mind telling us what the width of the RR was?  Both before and after it expands? 

And what of the station?  Don't some of you think the Sumner station ought to be front and center in this photo?   

And what of old mill road across the tracks?

[Bryan Izatt]

Joe,

No, I don't think anyone knows.  Pat would have us believe that there was an uninterrupted period of natural forest regeneration, but articles about the Pine Barrens in general suggest that logging and fires were fairly regular events throughout the area.  But, I've seen nothing specific to this property.

While I hesitated to chime in, the lack of tree height in this photo does make me wonder.
Does anyone know if ever or the last year the land was harvested for lumber/wood?

[Bryan Izatt]

Sure, it would be useful to have the captions, if there were indeed captions, from the back of the photos.  How do we know that there are captions on the back of the pictures (with my doubting David cap on)?  You seem to have periodic access to the course.  Could you not visit whatever archives they have and look at the pictures.  Do you really think they are all framed?

I have the same questions as Jim.  If there were captions on the back, or under them in a photo album, how would the person recording the caption (if there was one), know in 1909 exactly where in all the acres of southeast of Clementon they were and that three years later they were going to buy it for a golf course.  David just says that hunters, such as hinself, just know where they are at all times.  But this was 3 years before they bought it and a year even before Tillie said that Crump thought of it as a golf course as seen from the train.

If it was written by somebody else after the fact, based on where they understood it to be or figured it out to be, then we could have a different discussion.

So, I can't answer your hypothetical lie vs mistake question.  When and if we get a get a picture of the quote on the photo and determine who wrote it and when, then we could speculate on the truth/lie/mistake question.  Otherwise, this discussion will go nowhere.

Bryan,

That's why I think accessing the back of those photos might prove invalueable, despite Jim Sullivan's protests to the contrary.

In Jim's world, did the person writing the caption "lie" or just make a mistake ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Again, I'll say, why do we even bother.   

Both Jim and I have given you answers.  They are different answers, but they are answers and they were specific.  You have the blinders on so tight that you don't even recognize that we've answered you.  Take off the blinders.  Let in the light.

Re the rest of my answer, you clearly don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.  Do you actually read it and try to understand before you respond?

I am talking about longitudinally along the track.  The vertical wall of landform differs in height as you progress longitudinally along the 4000 feet.  Jim has given you specific answers for looks at right angles from the track.

But, what's the use.  You willfully ignore and disagree.

You said ten years ago:

And, I love to bust chops every now and then.

I think you have moved beyond now and then.  And, you fit the definition:  "To nag; to berate or hound in an effort to elicit action" with a focus on the berating part.  In my opinion, not a good trait to have.

[Bryan Izatt]

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


Bryan,

Not at all...I think we're discussing why and how that picture could be from the 3rd tee. David seems not to trust it but it rings true to me. The two distinguising features in the background sure make it certain the camera was pointed in a similar direction althought the land in between is so much different (no intervening ridge on the 3rd tee picture) that it makes pretty good sense to me...although the resolution of this shot is abou as bad as the resolution on the Shelly version of the 6th fairway picture we dealt with for a while.

Jim,

Sorry, what I posted above was incomplete.  I've edited it above and it follows below.

_____________________________



It says the 3rd tee.  But, let me now be the doubter on this one. Why can't it be looking to the southwest towards the green and the 6th fairway.  Wouldn't most people taking a picture from the 3rd tee point it in the direction of where they thought the 3rd green would be?   




We have this other picture, supposedly from the 3rd tee, presumably further into the clearing process, although there are other issues with this caption.




And, we have this picture from 1915 of the 3rd hole taken from somewhere near the tee looking to the green.  Looks like the 6th fairway cleared on the ridge.  Arguably the 3 pictures could all be from the same location pointing in the same direction.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re your pictures of the current impenetrable forest along the tracks, I think you said this picture you took shows (or not) the tracks from the 17th.  Are these trees not all deciduous?  Do you suppose it would be easy to see through them now, in the winter?



And, by the way, there are no pictures that you posted that show a view from anywhere near the 6th green looking to the 3rd tee area.  You posted many on pg 44 of the Pine Valley Topos thread from 6 fairway looking back towards the 6th tee and along the edge of the ridge, but nothing looking at the angle we've been talking about.  You had claimed a page or two ago that you had posted one of that angle.  If you did, it's gone.

[Bryan Izatt]

To try to get back to  a more productive discussion, let's look at the 3rd hole.  The 1913 topo shows two possible locations for the green.  Which one was used?  The one nearer the lot line on the right?  Or the one to the left closer to the 4th hole?  The Colt plan seems to put it more in the middle between the two.  Given that the current location is close to where the original 1912 property line was, I'd suggest it was closer to the right hand green.  The red-blue topo also places it near where the current hole is sited.






By 1915 the hole was built, as evidenced by this photo from Golf Illustrated.




Interestingly, the caption says that there is a 15 foot drop from tee to green.  The topo says it is more like 35 feet, if the right green was used or closer to 50 feet if the left green was used.  I'm guessing that the caption writer eyeballed the elevation and underestimated it.  It looks more like 30 feet than 15 feet from GE (with its accuracy limitations).  Anybody with on-site experience care to estimate the elevation drop.

The 6th green site and end of the 6th fairway appear very clearly in white, sand presumably, on top of the ridge on the left side.

It appears that the bunkers as originally conceived and built were more formal in nature.  By the 1920's they had devolved into more waste areas from tee to green with only formal edging on the green side.

Given the contour lines from the topo, it certainly looks like the bunkers were excavated, especially on the right side.  Looking at the bunker faces, it appears that the land was pure sand fairly deep down.  It seems unlikely that they put sand up those steep faces.  Simon Carr says in the accompanying article that the "soil is pure sand of a heavy texture".  It also appears that there is a thin layer of soil mix that forms the green surface.  Presumably that is the mixture of muck, sand and manure that was used as a seeding base for greens and tees.  Carr said greens were built with a foot of this mixture as a base.

Also interesting is that the excess sand from excavations from the bunkers or from general grading was dumped to the right of the green to create some alpinization.  That also has disappeared over time.

Some of our intrepid on-site reporters can comment on the shaping of the green.  According to the topo it should run away from the tee, if it was built on grade.  From pictures it looks like the back portion is raised some.  Perhaps the fill came form the bunker excavations or general grading around the hole.  Carr does say that there was "a vast amount of grading done" so there presumably was lots of fill immediately available.

 

[JESII]

Bryan,

Re: post #413, the white house on the left side of the 3rd tee picture and the sandy patch with a dark line running down it to the right center of that picture both match features in the distance of the 6th fairway picture. I don't think we have proof of where those two items actually are, but I think it's quite unlikely that the two camera directions were not similar although the intervening land (the foreground) of the two photos seem quite different. The foreground seems to match the captions...at least to the extent of where the picture was taken from.



Based on the maps and property lines, I think the 3rd hole in ply today more closely matches the right hand greensite on the stick routing as well.


Does anyone know if Colt provided yardages with his plan?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I have trouble understanding how those trees on the right could mask not only the RR tracks but also a right of way and a RR station if these things were only 360 yards away and 50-70 ft below.   I also have trouble understanding how that photo could be overlooking significantly lower ground.  If the camera was level, then everything along a horizontal line across the center of the photo ought to be at the same elevation as the camera -- in this case 150-160 ft above sea level.   If that photo with the man was taken from the third then the camera is angled significantly downward.  From the position of the man, I am not sure that that this is the case. That said, you have been there and I haven't, and maybe if I had been there I would understand.

As for Bryan's description of where we agree and disagree, he wrote that the absolute elevation issue is a "red herring." But the elevations on 1913 map are NOT  a red herring when we are trying to compare to elevations not depicted on that map, and this is exactly what we were trying to do in that particular discussion.   Bryan knows this and has acknowledged it, so I have no idea why he keeps indicating otherwise.
______________________________________________________________

Bryan,   You are increasingly treating elevation above sea level as some vague and amorphous corner of science where everything is up in the air.  This is hardly the case.    Science can determine elevations to within a foot using lidar technology, and such readings have been taking on Pine Valley's site.  While the data set isn't great, and isn't much good for comparing relative elevations on the site.  It does provide enough information that when combined with every other data set we have, it leaves no doubt about the accuracy of the 1913 data.

As for your implication that even sea level has been in flux enough to impact the measures, according to a few online sources, sea level rose by about 8 inches last century.   Not static, but certainly not the reason the 1913 numbers are off either.  

Also I think you have twisted "absolute elevation" well away from how I was using the phrase.    I was simply drawing a distinction between the relative measures within the 1913 survey vs. the actual measures as compared to the accepted benchmark of sea level, to point out that even if the relative measures are accurate (we don't know this) the entire data set could be off as compared to sea level.  This appears to be the case.    One need not determine the elevations on the site to zero error to know whether the 1913 site is accurate.   And one one need not have perfect correlation between the various USGS surveys.   But outside the vitriol of this discussion, I have no doubt that we would agree on this issue.

If we took five measures of the height of a man using various methods and technologies, and the heights were 5'11 1/2", 6'0", 6 1/2", 6'1", and 6'9", would you make no assumptions about the accuracy of the last measure or the height of the man?  

_____________________________________________________

As for your latest comments about Brauer, you baffle me.    Brauer had the last word and I let it go, without response. Yet here you are again not only  bringing it up but ripping me for not letting him get the last word, and claiming that it is me that won't let it go?   Perhaps it is you who won't let it go.  
____________________________________________

Regarding my questions about the third tee, you wrote:

I think it's possible that this picture is pointed in the opposite direction, so this discussion is moot.

Why, when you do not like the answer to my questions, do you declare my them "moot" or a "red herring?"    Do you really think that just because you think it possible that it could have been from another angle, my questions are irrelevant?

As to your theory about the camera facing the other way, as Jim points out the background looks to be the same as the photo supposedly from the 6th ridge.  Which brings me back to my questions . . . .
_________________________________________________________________

As for your requests that I measure the photo and estimate the height of the trees, I think we've covered it all before, and don't want to get back into you quizzing me about my ability to to understand photographs.   You never even bothered to answer my follow up questions last time we went down that road.   Anyway,  I am sure I posted the photo from the shelly book with a ruler so you can measure it if you like.  

[JESII]

David,

Maybe I'm missing what you think should be visible...for a moment let's leave the station out of it because I think it would be further East than this picture goes. The train tracks are at ground level in this picture (assuming the caption is correct) and the right of way wouldn't have been anything other than ground. What do you think we should see through those trees?

[DMoriarty]

If you zoom into that area sandy area in the right middle, you can see into those trees for a ways and see the sandy ground  continuing in.    If there is a RR in there I sure don't see it. 

Also, there must have been a cut through the trees wide enough for not only the RR but also the right of way, and if we were looking from 60 or 70 feet above this, then I'd expect to see some semblance of the cut through the trees.  60 or 70 feet over 350 yards is substantial.

[JESII]

I think it's 60 feet and if the trees are 20 feet tall then it's only 40 feet. Over 1,080 feet that's only 3.9% which is about the slope needed on a 4 foot left-to-righter to pucker my cheeks...

As with the Shelly version of the 6th hole picture, and to a lesser extent the Brown version, these pictures are too low quality for me to state anything as fact but the captions ring true to me based on my experiences.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Given the track itself was level, and on ground sloping away from the photographers location, its quite possible that it is sitting below a slight and steep earth cut in this view and that this drop off obsures the view.  It doesn't take much, as cross sections of other areas by David and Bryan have shown.

Just below the grid line in the upper left third of the photo David posted (and that we are discussing) I see two vertical elements that look very much like RR signal masts to me, one on each side of the track.  I also see some kind of light fixture in the upper center just right of Crump and haven't figured out what that might be.

If I had to guess, I would say Crump is looking down 2 fw towards 1 green.  Based on the photo and the 1898 topo, I see a road crossing below Crump, a steep bank in the background that is probably just right of the "75" marking on that topo, and an open sandy area with a slight fall off left, which would match the first green and second tee area.

As always, I could be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

I think it's 60 feet and if the trees are 20 feet tall then it's only 40 feet. Over 1,080 feet that's only 3.9% which is about the slope needed on a 4 foot left-to-righter to pucker my cheeks...

As with the Shelly version of the 6th hole picture, and to a lesser extent the Brown version, these pictures are too low quality for me to state anything as fact but the captions ring true to me based on my experiences.

I am not sure that the grade of a putting surface provides a useful point of comparison.  My point is that from above the level of the RR tracks and surrounding trees, and from only 360 yards away, I would think we'd be able to see some semblance of the swath cut through the trees for the RR and access road.  We see nothing of the sort.  Maybe had I seen it in person it would make more sense to me.

[JESII]

David,

Frankly I can't see how you could have any expectations of making perfect sense out of these pictures. Their qualiy leaves alot to the imagination.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Frankly I can't see how you could have any expectations of making perfect sense out of these pictures. Their qualiy leaves alot to the imagination.

Not really trying make perfect sense.  I'd settle for some sense.  And the photos ought to be good enough for that.  

While he claimed it was a "moot" issue rather than addressing it directly, I suspect that since Bryan is looking other directions it is because the caption of this photo doesn't really make sense to Bryan either.

A question . . . It looks as if on the topo there out to be a substantial drop in the elevation of the far hills, from right to left.   I see no sign of this in the photo.  Do you?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()