[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I've been trying to figure out an exact location of the Haverford College corner and you think you might want to consider moving your entire line a bit west, probably about 3 yards.  In the 1928 survey, the north-south borderline started only 11 feet (N 65:48 W) from where the center of Golf House Road intersected the center of College, and I think we both were starting too far east.   The original road looks like it was only about 20 ft. wide.    As for the rest of the dimensions, I will try and work them out tomorrow, but they are only for part of the space.  If I can get it scanned I'll send it.

Contrary to TEPaul's speculation, the description of the HDC borer I gave you was correct.   Funny how he has the same 1928 information as me (likely copied from the same source, since I told Wayne where to get it,) yet he can only speculate as to whether or not I got it right.   Goes to show that having the metes and bounds doesn't mean much of one cannot understand them.   

_____________________________

I think Exhibit A, the November 1910 Land Plan that ostensibly showed that the Francis Land Swap had to have happend prior to then just got sunk deeper than the Titanic, when it finally became obvious that it was simply meant to be exactly what it stated....a general idea of the approximate property delineation between real estate and golf course.

Mike Cirba,

Let me see if I understand . . .   You guys tried and tried to twist the 1910 plan into something it obviously wasn't (an exact survey.) You failed, so now you insist we all throw out the document?  Either the document is exact or it is garbage?   Either we accept your misinterpretation or no one can use the document for any purpose?

I don't think so.

Here is an idea:  Why don't we use the document as it was intended to be used.  While the plan was not meant to be exact, MCC provided the Nov. 1910 plan to the membership to show them the land that MCC was planning to use for their new golf course.

Mike,  pardon me for saying so, but your latest theory (Francis transposing the greens in his description) is not only a pretty good indication that your interest is something other than getting to what really happened, but it is also a good indication of just how far you are willing to go to come up with a version of facts that fits with your preconceived notions.


________________________________

Tom Paul, 

1.  Contrary to your claim,  I repeatedly measured the triangle area before I posted my essay, and Francis' description fits the area to a tee (and a green.)   In contrast:
  -  You guys hadn't measured the area when you foolishly attacked my theory a year ago, insisting that you knew the land, and it was much wider than 130 yards.   So large that Francis had actually added an additional 130 x 190 yard parcel!   
  -  You guys hadn't measured the area before you flew off the handle in this thread, ridiculing me, insulting me, and accusing me of disrespecting Lloyd and the men of Merion, simply because I told you (accurately) that: (a) The road was in an APPROXIMATE LOCATION; and (b) the area designated for the golf course was substantially larger than 117 acres.
  -  You apparently haven't measured anything to do with your latest unintelligible theory about the land swap, instead simply assuming acreages (18 acres here, 23 acres there) to fit your understanding, rather than getting the facts first, then coming to an understanding. 
  -  While you claim to possess all the metes and bounds, and therefor think you know everything, it is quite obvious that you haven't the slightest idea how to use them, yet you have ignored Bryan's (and my) repeated requests for them so we can provide accurate measures.   

2.  You disingenuously assert that I claimed in my essay that the triangle on the 1910 map was 130 X 190 yards.  Yet even the quote you offer contradicts this.  I didn't refer to the 1910 plan but to the actual golf course, same as Francis did;  "No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description."

3.  You try the same thing with Francis, but he too referred to the actual golf course, not the 1910 plan.

4.  You keep saying the triangle was 327 yards long, but the usable space seems to have been about 190 yards.  While Merion appears to have owned about 1/2 the width of the road all the way to College (thus guarantee themselves a right of way) this was not usuable land.   At least I've never heard of a tee or green being built on an actual street.  Have you?

5.  Your threats, ultimatums, and demands are tired and more than a little pathetic.   In case you haven't caught on, I'll neither grovel to you guys, nor will I admit anything without factual justification, nor will I otherwise acquiesce to a single one of your pompous and self-aggrandizing demands.

Honestly, Tom if it wasn't for your posts like No. 672 and a few others, we might just have an interesting and informative conversation.   You need to drop the condescension and the animosity and quit trying to puff yourself at my expense.  You guys have made more substantial errors in this thread alone than I made in my entire essay yet you still try to insult me and portray me as the idiot here, while simultaneously pretending that my theories are your own.

Look what you've done with the approximate road issue and the acreage issue on the 1910 map-- you have now accepted exactly what you vehemently, repeatedly, and rudely rejected earlier in this thread.   Yet now you have the nerve to scold me, lecture me, and misrepresent my position on these same issue.  Unbelievable. 

If you want to participate in a fact based conversation, then great.  Otherwise, why are you here?    At least have the decencly to get out of our way. 

[Bryan Izatt]

One last try to overlay the 11-15-1910 map to the current aerial.  I have overlaid it and then distorted it to match the 6 small red dots, 3 along College and 3 along Ardmore, that mark street/RR intersections then and now.  The end result:  the boundary between Haverford College and Merion is around 30 -35 yards too far east on the 1910 map.  Along with the other mismatches I've demonstrated on the 1910 map, I will conclude that it is not useful from a quantitative measurement point of view.

The one qualitative thing that I would conclude from the 1910 map is that some polygonal shaped piece of land west of Haverford College was contemplated by the map drawers to be part of the north end of the proposed Merion golf course.  Of importance to me is that it was there when the map was drawn.  The map was dated 11-15-1910.  It took some time to draw and there was some time for input from someone(s) in HDC as to what the relative shapes and locations of the development and golf course lands should be. It sure wasn't the surveyors who decided which land was which.  Whether that polygon was useful or big enough to accomodate holes or not, somebody had the idea that it was going to be part of the golf course property, and they had that idea a month or more before November 1910.

In our obsession with the golf course implications, perhaps we should keep in mind that the HDC was probably not altogether altruistic and really had some interest in pursuing the development of the land and making a few (or a lot) of bucks on the real estate development.  Some of the power brokers might have been trying to optimize the development land, and not the golf course, because the course sure looks squeezed at the morth end and elsewhere.

For whatever it is worth, the distance from the real 1910 boundary to the middle of the current Golf House Road is 115 yards.  Not 95 and not 130.  (it seems surveyors measure from the middle of roads, and Francis was a surveyor).  So where was the 130 yard x 190 yard piece of land, of indeterminate shape, that Francis mentioned 40 years after the fact?  I don't think that either his statement or the map allow us to draw a definitive conclusion.  Vis-a-vis designing the golf course, I would infer from the map that someone had some idea of a rough routing of the course, else why show that odd piece of land at the north end?  It would have been more valuable as real estate than laying fallow if it wasn't thought to be included in the course layout.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Bryan.  I appreciate your effort and agree with much of what you have written.   As I said, I think perhaps the border needs to shift west, but not by very much.

One note:  If one used the real Haverford college border as a reference point, and lined this up with the with the same border on the 1910 plan, it looks like the holes would easily fit.     I won't bother posting proof because no one would believe it coming from me anyway.

[Bryan Izatt]

David, looks like our posts passed in the night.  Vis-a-vis the boundary being 3 yards west, I don't think that I can be that accurate with the tools I've got.  It's just too hard to pinpoint the the middle of the roads with that accuracy.  Now, if Mike, in the interests of science and research could take his Blackberry and GPS app out there and find the stakes and their coordinates ............

Re sliding the 1910 boundary west to match the real boundary, sure there would probably be enough room up there for the 15th green and 16th tee, but doing that is fraught with issues.  If the scale is not right to get the border in the right place, then the width of the triangle is suspect too.  Secondly, the problem area with width and the "approximate"  road isn't there anyway, it just to the south of that around the 14th green.  Sliding the boundary west doesn't fix that.  Since I think that someone thought that some part of the course was going in that triangle before drawing the 1910 map, I wouldn't be surprised if it was wide enough to fit an up and back pair of holes in 1910.  However not being surprised and being right are not the same.

Bryan, I've been trying to figure out an exact location of the Haverford College corner and you think you might want to consider moving your entire line a bit west, probably about 3 yards.  In the 1928 survey, the north-south borderline started only 11 feet (N 65:48 W) from where the center of Golf House Road intersected the center of College, and I think we both were starting too far east.   The original road looks like it was only about 20 ft. wide.    As for the rest of the dimensions, I will try and work them out tomorrow, but they are only for part of the space.  If I can get it scanned I'll send it.

Contrary to TEPaul's speculation, the description of the HDC borer I gave you was correct.   Funny how he has the same 1928 information as me (likely copied from the same source, since I told Wayne where to get it,) yet he can only speculate as to whether or not I got it right.   Goes to show that having the metes and bounds doesn't mean much of one cannot understand them.   

_____________________________

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

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The holes don't fit.   No matter how we try to hackney it, or rig it, they don't fit.

That shouldn't be a surprise.

There is no way on this planet that someone laid out the golf course and then laid down that border.

That would assume that somewhere up on top of the triangle someone imagined either a tee or green 11 feet wide.

That would assume that someone was going 327 up into the corner yards knowing it was a one way trip to nowhere.

That triangle is there on the map because in an effort to illustrate rough boundaries between land considered for golf and land considered for real estate someone drew a soft curving equidistant, curivlinear approximate road north/south through about the middle of the northern section of the Johnson Farm, which seemed a logical place to separate the components. 

They also knew they wanted to build a road as the divider, and all the roads in the development are curving for aesthetic purposes.

Bryan/Sully, look at those original RR maps again...the triangle runs north to College Avenue because that's what they owned, at least in theory before they started actually trying to put a golf course out there.

It may even have been a working boundary.





However, it was drawn with the idea that it was moveable, and inaccurate.

We've just proven how inaccurate it is, and no one has even talked about how inaccurate it is in length, only width, where the land is not wide enough to fit the golf holes.

In the meantime, it's an exercise in trying to put a round peg in a square hole.

The irony is, you guys are running into the exact same problem as Hugh WIlson and Committee did, which Francis solved.

There isn't enough room to fit the golf holes.

If they drew this triangle because they'd already laid out golf holes in that area, WHY DOES the triangle run all the way to College Avenue??

Surely anyone on the planet would know it was a one way trip to nowhere.   IT'S INSANE to think they did this purposefully.   

LOOK at the soft, equidistant curves of that road.   WHO lays out a golf course like that??   Do you really think that's the lines of the golf course that was laid out???

And they did build a curving road by 1911, exactly as they wanted to, although they shifted the proposed dimensions to fit the golf holes, per Richard Francis.   However, ultimately, they built the road to fit the golf course, not the other way around as has been proposed here.

I'll see what I can do about GPS coordinates, but Merion is an hour drive each way from me and this week is going to be busy.

David,

My latest theory is tongue in cheek, but certainly no more preposterous than you trying to claim that 100X327 = 130x190. 

Or, that an inaccurate boundary drawn on a prospectus land plan is somehow proof that the golf course was already laid out, even the 11 foot wide green up top. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike,
Of course they would have built the road to fit the course.  Here's a developer next door to a new world-class golf course.  He wants to sell lots and homes - to maximize profit.  And to do so, I think he'd capitulate to almost whatever Merion wanted.

[TEPaul]

“Tom Paul, 
1.  Contrary to your claim,  I repeatedly measured the triangle area before I posted my essay, and Francis' description fits the area to a tee (and a green.)”

David Moriarty:

You did? How could you measure the triangle AREA if?-----

1. You have since admitted on here that the “approximate road location” (the triangle’s left side) is inexact.
2. The known and pre-existing border of the right side of that triangle (in green) is 327 yards long; not 190 yards long as Richard Francis described in his 1950 story.
3. You said the following in your essay about that triangle.   


“Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan.”


In your essay you included the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan above your explanation of Francis’ land swap and you referred to the entirety of that triangle in green on that land plan. The right side of that triangle is very measurable from College on the north to the southwest corner of the College Ave. land----a border that existed on the old Johnson farm and was exactly used for the golf course on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan AS WELL AS the Lloyd purchase on Dec. 19, 1910----a linear dimension, I will remind you, still exists today (not as part of the golf course though)---eg 327 yard AND NOT 190 YARDS!

What would be really interesting however, is to compare the metes and bounds on the Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd when he bought the 161 acres that DID include the entirety of the Johnson farm AND the transfer to MCCGA on July 21, 1911, seven months later, that DID NOT include the entirety of the Johnson farm but did include the metes and bounds of Club House Road!! 

The point is if the Francis land swap idea had been agreed upon by Lloyd and Francis or Lloyd and HDC BEFORE that Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd (and certainly a month or more before that and before THAT Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) why wouldn't it have been included in the metes and bounds of the property Lloyd bought for MCC on Dec. 19, 1911 to hold for seven months or even on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?? 

I believe a comparision of the metes and bounds of those two deeds, particularly in that area of the triangle will show us Francis' idea and the land swap to effectuate it had to have happened within that time frame----eg Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911, when Lloyd held the land for MCC, and matter of fact it would have had to happen between Dec. 19, 1910 AND that MCC April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting BECAUSE Thompson reflects THAT LAND SWAP in that meeting with his resolution for which he asks for and gets approval from the board (Aahh, the beauties of using a really good TIMELINE of ACTUAL FACTUAL EVENTS!!).

Frankly, when one analyzes what all this means in the the context of the ENTIRETY of Francis' story the entire story makes a whole lot more sense. What you did in your essay is just severely limit his story by concentrating on A PART of his land swap story----the part about his description of the triangle's dimensions (130x190).

The rest of his story you didn't even try to consider such as the part about getting the first thirteen holes in BEFORE running into the problem on the last five, as his story says. You also had to try to rationalize away what he said about the quarry men blowing the top off the quarry in two days. It's not very likely that anyone is going to blow the top of a quarry off a couple of months BEFORE they own the quarry! I'm sure even you realized this and so, as you have with some many men around Merion at that time including Hugh Wilson's brother Alan, you have to just try to rationalize away the importance of the things they said and wrote by suggesting they all  must have been mistaken or engaging in hyperbole.

I doubt that. It's just that the things they said and wrote don't fit at all into your scenario and your fallacious premises to construct this over-all scenario and so you have to discount, rationalize away somehow or just ignore the important things they all said, and now including a number of FACTS that have come forward SINCE you wrote your essay!!

We should probably go back and begin at the beginning and show how and how much you have done this kind of rationalizing away of important facts and statments in your essay, and certainly in the last year since it's come out. That way I feel more people would understand just why your essay is such fallacy as well as how you're still trying to defend it.

And this is not even to mention that at this point you seem to be virtually claiming that Lloyd and Francis were out there designing this golf course a number of month BEFORE Hugh I. Wilson and the rest of his committee (Griscom and Toulmin) were even appointed or got involved!! I guess your other fallacious premise in your essay that the Wilson Committee were nothing other than "CONSTRUCTORS" (with you Oxford English Dictionary definition rationalization of "lay out" ) to someone else's golf course plan is also coming back to haunt you and your essay, huh?

So what is your story now----that Lloyd and Francis were the routers and designers and then they joined Wilson, Griscom and Toulmin who were THE CONSTRUCTORS to their plan?  And that first Lloyd and Francis had some help from M/W and Barker who hadn't even been there since some day in June 1910 and then they joined the other three members of the committee in January and they all went to see M/W in March 1911 to learn how to just CONSTRUCT a course! 

I guess you know need to claim that, right, since you've been suggesting on this thread that you now think a routing and design of the course was nearly finalized BEFORE Lloyd bought the property on Dec. 19, 1910!

You constructed a house of cards with your essay, and the additional FACTS that have come forward SINCE you put it on here, including Macdonald's own letter which you never saw, the metes and bounds of the deeds you never saw, the Cuylers letter you never saw, the Wilson report to the board on April, 19, 1911 you never saw, the Thompson resolution to the board at the April 19, 1911 board meeting reflecting the land exchange for adjoining land and the additional purchase of three more acres (the Francis land swap) you NEVER SAW, are all together bringing your entire "house of cards" essay down even if you refuse to consider why or admit it, both of which frankly don't even matter anymore.

I think one thing your essay has probably done benefically is to totally confirm by the days and weeks of continous documentary material searching and analysis by us something that in almost a century has never been questioned before, and with good reason!

[DMoriarty]

Again Tom, Francis referred to the actual golf course, not to 1910 plan.   I measured accordingly.   

I'd appreciate it you would quit misrepresenting my position.   If you have facts, bring them forward, otherwise you are wasting our time.

[TEPaul]

"Again Tom, Francis referred to the actual golf course, not to 1910 plan.   I measured accordingly.   
I'd appreciate it you would quit misrepresenting my position.   If you have facts, bring them forward, otherwise you are wasting our time."


David Moriarty:

No problem at all. But then why did you feel it necessary to contend in your essay that Francis' swap must have been BEFORE that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan that showed that triangle on it? Your essay contends that triangle was the RESULT of Francis' land swap idea.


Here's what your essay says about the triangle:

"Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property.[15] Property records confirm this.[16] The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee."


That statement of yours in your essay is completely inconsistent with Lloyd's Dec. 19, 1910 deed, with Cuylers letter to MCC president Evans, with Wilson's report to the board meeting of April, 19, 1911, with Thompson's resolution for the land swap in that board meeting, and with Lloyd's deed passing the golf course land back to MCCGA on July 21, 1911 (which, by the way, has the metes and bounds of Golf House Road ON IT ).

I hope even you will admit you had none of those FACTS to analyze and consider BEFORE you wrote you essay assuming the things you did in it.

[DMoriarty]

The map did show the land on which the golf course would be located, but I did not claim it was exactly measured.  Although, as we are finding out, the width of the triangle on the 1910 drawing was much closer to the actual original dimensions that you and Mike have been claiming.   

It is not that complicated, Tom.   The 1910 map was an approximation, but an approximation that included area west of the college land for a golf course.  I see no viable explanation for including this land except that they planned to put the golf course up there.   

The problem was and continues to be the same,  your various theories are not consistent with the Francis statement, in which he identified the land swapped for and in which he identified the reason for the swap.   You can't get around this by insulting me, but I am sure that won't stop you from trying. 

As for your new facts, they don't touch the premise of my essay.  A few of them even support it!

[Mike_Cirba]

To contend that the golf course was laid out before that Land Plan was drawn, you'd have to accept the notion that Francis and Co. had already surveyed the entire property, laid out and FINALIZED 13 holes south of the clubhouse while certainly and quickly realizing THEY ONLY had left themselves enough space north of the clubhouse for PERHAPS 3 HOLES, dynamited an area for a green on land they didn't yet own, laid out the full 18 by buying a NEW triangle of land, and THEN, after DOING ALL OF THAT;

...Hire an outside surveyor Pugh & Hubbard to draw a new land plan, NOT to scale, to present the plan to the membership

...NOT begin construction, or seeding in the prime time of autumn of 1910, even though David asserts the routing was likely done by summer 1910

...Actually have Lloyd buy the land in question, taking control for MCC

...Send a prospectus to membership, asking for their support in actually buying into this new endeavor.

...Form a new committee to "construct" the course, and presumably put shovels in the hands of Lloyd, Francis, Wilson and the boys to dig them up a course.

...Have that committee for some odd reason route many new attempts at the course.

...Have that committee go to visit Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA

...Have that committee lay out five different plans on their return from NGLA

...Have Macdonald and Whigham come down to Merion to help them select the best of five plans even though the course had supposedly been routed  in full 10 months prior.

...Go to the board to approve that plan, even though the routing had been done 10 months prior.

...Go to the board to get approval to buy land needed when the course routing was completed 10 months prior.

...Put HG Lloyd in charge of a construction crew.  Ditto Wilson, Griscom, Francis (who must have been frankly exhausted at this point! ), and Dr. Toulmin.   

...Hire Fred Pickering to lead construction 

[Mike_Cirba]

It is not that complicated, Tom.   The 1910 map was an approximation, but an approximation that included area west of the college land for a golf course.  I see no viable explanation for including this land except that they planned to put the golf course up there.   

David,

The REASON the 1910 map showed an area west of the college land for a golf course is BECAUSE THE JOHNSON FARM PROPERTY BOUNDARIES CONSIDERED FOR GOLF INCLUDED LAND RUNNING WEST OF THE COLLEGE, ALL THE WAY TO COLLEGE AVENUE! 

IT"S NOT THAT COMPLICATED.

SOMEONE DREW A PROPOSED, APPROXIMATE, CURVING, EQUIDISTANT ROAD UP THE LENGTH OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE JOHNSON PROPERTY ALL THE WAY TO COLLEGE AVENUE! 

IT SIGNIFIES NOTHING BUT AN ESTIMATED BOUNDARY BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AND GOLF COURSE.

IT IS NOT TO SCALE AND IN FACT IS WAYYYYYY OFF.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Here's something else you said in the "Author's note" in the beginning of your essay:

"The core of my thesis is in place, but I hope and expect that my analysis will evolve as I continue to study the topic and as others challenge my ideas. Thank you in advance to those who will read, consider, and constructively challenge the work."


We have been challenging your essay. Isn't that what you wanted? Or did you expect some to challenge it and not others?

I think this can still be a productive discussion, and I think a good place to start would be at the beginning. In that vein I would expect you to carefully consider the question I asked you on post #670. It's just a question and frankly a very fundamental one about the way you went about your essay and what you said in it. There's nothing mean-spirited about it----it's just a pretty fundamental question which I look at as the beginning of starting point of a constructive challenge which is what you asked for in the first place.

Frankly, I think we have all learned a lot about what really did go on at Merion in 1910 and 1911 and certainly from the material evidence that has come forward since your essay and I think we have all learned a lot on this very thread. Good discussions come from good questions about what we have all learned and posts like your #688 don't do a thing to further those good discussions. That post is just another of your litanies of who knew what a year and more ago. That's not producive at all. But if that is the best type of responses you can give at this point then I guess they just are but it is most certainly not lost on my why you offer responses like that at this point.

I don't think you are interested in good and constructive discussion on FACTUAL material of the type we have mentioned on here since your essay, and the reason why is crystal clear----even you know it will prove your essay's premises and conclusions wrong. And so you just continue to divert the discussions with complaints like post #688.

Consider my first point and question in post #670 carefully and let's get on with a good discussion JUST ABOUT THE FACTS!

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If you want a really good and factual discussion on this Francis land swap or on your essay I'd suggest another thread between us.

This thread I think has gotten way too long and unwieldy. I have no idea what the people trying to analyze measurements via Google Earth with red and green and yellow lines on old aerials or on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan or even PRR Plat maps think they are ultimately accomplishing here.

It seems everyone has learned something on this thread and all are in agreement on it----eg that "approximate road" on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is not something any of us can use reliably to measuring anything off of. So even though all seem to have admitted that why are they still using it with red and greens and yellow or orange lines to measure ANYTHING off of such as where that boundary was on The Wilson Committees TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS that they used in 1911 when the laid out courses on that land that had ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED by Lloyd??


I've never noticed any TOPOGRAPHICAL CONTOUR lines on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan, have you?

So hopefully we can all agree not to use that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan for measurements any longer, and learn to understand it may not BE THE SAME THING or show us THE SAME THING re: that Club House Road's dimensional delineation does on the topographical survey MAPS Wilson and his committee WERE using and what THOSE MAPS showed them.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

What would be really interesting however, is to compare the metes and bounds on the Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd when he bought the 161 acres that DID include the entirety of the Johnson farm AND the transfer to MCCGA on July 21, 1921, seven months later, that DID NOT include the entirety of the Johnson farm but did include the metes and bounds of Club House Road!! 

The point is if the Francis land swap idea had been agreed upon by Lloyd and Francis or Lloyd and HDC BEFORE that Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd (and certainly a month or more before that and before THAT Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) why wouldn't it have been included in the metes and bounds of the property Lloyd bought for MCC on Dec. 19, 1911 to hold for seven months or even on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?? 

I believe a comparision of the metes and bounds of those two deeds, particularly in that area of the triangle will show us Francis' idea and the land swap to effectuate it had to have happened within that time frame----eg Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911, when Lloyd held the land for MCC, and matter of fact it would have had to happen between Dec. 19, 1910 AND that MCC April 19, 1910 MCC board meeting BECAUSE Thompson reflects THAT LAND SWAP in that meeting with his resolution for which he asks for and gets approval from the board (Aahh, the beauties of using a really good TIMELINE of ACTUAL FACTUAL EVENTS!!).

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

Tom,

Could you correct the years in the above paragraphs.  It's very confusing with the errors in it now.

Indeed, it would be good to do that comparison of the metes and bounds.  Do you have both of them?  Will you publish them here so we can deal with the facts and not all this conjecture on all parts.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Come on Mike,  let's get beyond your absurd hyperbole.   You wouldn't have to assume any of that.   He was looking at a map, saw the potential of that land, took the idea to Lloyd and Lloyd made it happen.   It is not that complicated.   

The site Committee needed to find a site suitable for a golf course.   Do you really think they would really recommend the purchase of nearly 120 acres if they didn't know a course would fit? 

Look, I don't care if you guys agree or not.  But despite a years worth of posturing, insults, sarcasm and righteous indignation, you guys haven't even come close to proving that it could not happen the way I hypothesize.   Tom Paul's claims that he had evidence to prove me wrong were nothing but him puffing hot air.

And as I see it, despite numerous promises of refutations and timelines, mine is still the only viable explanation out there.   

That being said, if there are VERIFIABLE FACTS that I haven't considered, I'd be glad to consider them.   But all the rest of this is a monumental waste of time.

____________________________________

David Moriarty:

Here's something else you said in the "Author's note" in the beginning of your essay:

"The core of my thesis is in place, but I hope and expect that my analysis will evolve as I continue to study the topic and as others challenge my ideas. Thank you in advance to those who will read, consider, and constructively challenge the work."


We have been challenging your essay. Isn't that what you wanted? Or did you expect some to challenge it and not others?

TEPaul,

You've done nothing of the sort.    All you have done is posture, insult, and repeatedly make unsupportable claims based on information that you have but do not even understand.   

If you really want to get to the truth, you will let me vet your preposterous claims.

Where is your promised timeline? 
Where is your promised FACTUAL refutation of my position?
Why won't you provide the metes and bounds as Bryan has repeatedly requested?
Why won't you tell us what ELSE is in the Cuyler's letter?

As for the road,  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY POSITION THAT THE LOCATION OF THE ROAD WAS APPROXIMATE, AND THAT WE COULD NOT RELIABLY MEASURE OFF OF IT.  I note the road was approximate in my essay and have always considered it so.   IT WAS YOU GUYS WHO CLAIMED IT WAS EXACT.   So quit pretending that I am finally admitting anything of the sort, as if you convinced me of it.  That is absurd.

As for your question in 670, I am not sure I understand it, nor do I think you do.  But ask it again (without editorializing or commentary) and I will answer it if I can.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Could you correct the years in the above paragraphs.  It's very confusing with the errors in it now."



Bryan:

I think I corrected them. If some date seems confusing to you by all means just point it out to me.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Come on Mike,  let's get beyond your absurd hyperbole.   You wouldn't have to assume any of that.   He was looking at a map, saw the potential of that land, took the idea to Lloyd and Lloyd made it happen.   It is not that complicated.   

The site Committee needed to find a site suitable for a golf course.   Do you really think they would really recommend the purchase of nearly 120 acres if they didn't know a course would fit? 

David,

All of the FACTS I mentioned happened AFTER November 15, 1910, so YES, you would have to assume ALL of it.   They were all events subsequent to that Land Plan's creation, and they are also the timeline of events sequentially.

So, whether you want to call it absurd hyperbole because you cannot make these incovenient facts disappear, or rationalize their existence, they are the elephant in the room.

As far as 120 acres,

We know Connell originally suggested 100 acres, or whatever would be required for the golf course.

we know Macdonald expressed some real reservations in his July 1910 letter as to whether there was enough land for even a 6,000 yard course given, what had to be obvious to his trained eye;

A public road crossing
A large quarry
Existing outbuildings
Narrow strips of land on both sides of the road

Merion's original course was squeezed into 72 acres.   

120 acre seems like a nice, even number, giving them enough room, and getting past Macdonald's expressed reservations.

[TEPaul]

"As for your question in 670, I am not sure I understand it, nor do I think you do.  But ask it again (without editorializing or commentary) and I will answer it if I can."




David Moriarty:


Here it is again with no editorializing:



“The beauty of the numerical exercise in POST #652 is it can show us to the acre what went on here by using two totals (117) and (120.1)  as well as the particulars of the Thompson resolution on April 19, 1911 which match those two totals numerically (acreage). From there we then need to consider where the problem was; the problem Francis's idea solved and what Francis was working with that created the problem (obviously topo (contour) survey maps of the property and not that Nov. 15. PROPOSED land plan or anything preceding it). We need to recognize that something was squeezing THEM in on those last five holes along the western border of the golf course at the top of the "L" which is now Club House Road.

I'll start from the beginning again and take you through it, but first let me ask you a question. In some posts on this thread I believe you mentioned a few times that you think either the land bought or the land demarked in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was MORE than 117 acres. I recall you said something to do with this over-all question or subject that the land bought or whatever was more than 117 acres, so what were you referring to?

If that's true which is it? 

From there we can just start at the beginning and move along getting agreement on each point before we move to the next one. If we can't manage that we should be able to see what particular point is the one that is sticking us up.”


I understand exactly what I mean on this numerical exercise using ONLY the FACTS of the totals off two deeds and some identifiable incremental tracts on the Johnson Farm and the Thompson Resolution to the Board on April 19, 1911 that addresses the EXCHANGE of land ADJOINING for land ALREADY PURCHASED and the PURCHASE of an additional 3 acres for $7,500.

Those are all FACTS from Merion itself----no indirect newspaper accounts or speculations by anyone on here including myself. If there is something about it you don’t understand please feel free to ask-----that is if you really are interested in a good and productive discussion that very likely will get to the bottom of this Francis land swap, when it happened and how.

[DMoriarty]

Mike you are flailing at this point.   Let's get back to facts.

TEPaul,

Can we have the coordinates so we can figure exactly the land we are dealing with?  You keep referencing them, but as far as I can tell you haven't done a thing with them.

If not, why not?   Surely they are not private information by anyone's standards.


In some posts on this thread I believe you mentioned a few times that you think either the land bought or the land demarked in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was MORE than 117 acres. I recall you said something to do with this over-all question or subject that the land bought or whatever was more than 117 acres, so what were you referring to?

The land demarked in green was MORE THAN 117 ACRES.   

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't understand why the first question about "facts" references the dimensions of a 1910 Land Plan that everyone admits is erroneous in dimension and purpose?

Haven't enough completely erroneous conclusions already been drawn due to the way this flawed document was presented here originallly and subsequently interpreted?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Can we have the coordinates so we can figure exactly the land we are dealing with?  You keep referencing them, but as far as I can tell you haven't done a thing with them.

If not, why not?   Surely they are not private information by anyone's standards."


David Moriarty:

While some of Merion's own survey maps may be private information, I do not consider any of Merion's 11-12 deeds to be private information since all of them are available to anyone at the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county seat, Media, Pa. What coordinates are you asking about? And what deeds? Would you like the telephone # of the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's County Seat in Media, Pa so you could identify them all to the Recorder of Deeds office and perhaps have all of them sent to you? That would probably be a good idea. It probably would've been a good idea well over a year ago, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

"The land demarked in green was MORE THAN 117 ACRES."



David Moriarty:

Thank you very much for that answer. Apparently you mean all the land in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan that is marked "Merion Golf Course", correct? If that's correct how did you come to that determination or conclusion?   
 
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Thanks for correcting.  I think there's one more to go.

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

The point is if the Francis land swap idea had been agreed upon by Lloyd and Francis or Lloyd and HDC BEFORE that Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd (and certainly a month or more before that and before THAT Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) why wouldn't it have been included in the metes and bounds of the property Lloyd bought for MCC on Dec. 19, 1911  (this should be 1910, no?) to hold for seven months or even on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?? 

I believe a comparision of the metes and bounds of those two deeds, particularly in that area of the triangle will show us Francis' idea and the land swap to effectuate it had to have happened within that time frame----eg Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911, when Lloyd held the land for MCC, and matter of fact it would have had to happen between Dec. 19, 1910 AND that MCC April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting BECAUSE Thompson reflects THAT LAND SWAP in that meeting with his resolution for which he asks for and gets approval from the board (Aahh, the beauties of using a really good TIMELINE of ACTUAL FACTUAL EVENTS!!).

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

[Bryan Izatt]

"Tom,
Could you correct the years in the above paragraphs.  It's very confusing with the errors in it now."



Bryan:

I think I corrected them. If some date seems confusing to you by all means just point it out to me.

Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds.  Have you got them?  Will you share them?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()