Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

"This is just the latest wild goose chase that Bryan and I could work out in no time if we had access to the dimensions.   

Imagine the reaction if I was wrong as much has these guys are?   They are wrong more in any single thread than I was in my entire essay."


Sully:

This man reminds me of some of the children I knew in Daytona Beach when I was about five years old. We could be standing outside at noon on a beautiful day and some of them seemed to actually think if they just denied it was noon and the sun was shinning and that it was actually midnight that you should believe them.

You should take the time to reread "The Missing Faces of Merion." Other than his discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 and that Macdonald/Whigam visited Ardmore once in June 1910 and once in April 1911 and that Wilson and his committee went to NGLA for two days I don't think there is a single thing in that essay that's accurate or even remotely a fact!

For God sake's he didn't even know WHEN Wilson and Committee went to NGLA. He got that one wrong by about two months!!   

A couple of months ago I proved Wilson and his committee actually went to NGLA for two days in the second week of March, 1911. But just watch; tomorrow this guy will probably change his essay from what it said----that they probably went in the beginning of January----to the fact that they went in the second week of March and about a day later he will try to CLAIM that HE told ME that!!   

This guy is unbelievable I tell you. Just UNBELIEVABLE!!  He's no different than those children in Daytona Beach who figured if they just denied the complete obvious and told you something else compeletly untrue that you should believe them just because they told it to you!  

Do you know some of those TV ads that've been around lately with the little two year old kid with the adult voice sitting in his high-chair who's telling his parents how to invest and plan their lives and stuff? I think that kid is actually David Moriarty!   

[TEPaul]

By the way, Sully, it was fun watching you guys yesterday from time to time throughout the day.

(Guys, SullyII and his dad were in the final group yesterday of the two day Pennsylvania Better Ball Championship at HVGC. They were in contention to win it right up to the final hole).

Aaah, Sully, great drive you hit there on #18 to be right in position to maybe birdie the hole and win or catch a play-off. But I gotta ask you what was that approach shot you tried to hit in there? It looked OK at first but then it looked like it had sort of planned on being a draw that sort of had a mid-life crisis right at the top of its trajectory and decided to turn into a push so it could hang out on the beach for a coupla minutes. 

Apparently that must have pissed you off a whole lot with that ball because you sure did hit him hard coming out of that beach! 

[JESII]

Tommy,

If I tried to lay out a timeline of all the bizarre thoughts running through my head as I was thinking about and attempting to hit that 7-iron it just might compete with this thread in both length, and bizzare thoughts...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

If I tried to lay out a timeline of all the bizarre thoughts running through my head as I was thinking about and attempting to hit that 7-iron it just might compete with this thread in both length, and bizzare thoughts...

Jim,

As long as your final swing thought wasn't, "there's no way that triangle could have been the land they swapped for!", then you'e probably still ok. 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

We now have heard at least three or four different versions of what Cuyler wrote in his letter to Evans.   Did he really write four different letters?  Not that I know of.  

Either Tom doesn't understand the letter, or he is incredibly sloppy, or he is playing games.   My experience indicates that it is probably all three.  

What sort of a conversation can we have when only one of has the source, and he keeps changing his mind on what it says?  

Why are we here, to listen to him pontificate until he finally settles on what he is going to pretend the document means.    

All I know is that if TEPaul insists on telling us what a document means but will not show us the document, then whatever he tells us is not accurate.

Similarly, I think this Taylor Property nonsense is the 4th or 5th alternative theory they have offered to explain away Francis' own word.  And this one has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT FRANCIS ACTUALLY SAID.    They are throwing the poor guy under the bus once again.  

Plus it is pretty comical that he won't give Bryan the directions.   All Bryan needs is the bearing of the Western border of the Johnson farm, and we'd be able to put this silly theory to rest.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have a question.

Despite what you think of Tom Paul and the way he's going about this, from a purely technical standpoint do you think that the methodology he's describing by having a surveyor compare the 1910 Lloyd deed with the 1928 Merion survey will yield the correct results?

In your opinion, should this type of exercise get to the Francis Land Swap answer?

In other words, I would expect that if the Land Swap happened before the November 1910 Land Plan, then those maps should show no difference.   Would you agree?

[TEPaul]

"Similarly, I think this Taylor Property nonsense is the 4th or 5th alternative theory they have offered to explain away Francis' own word.  And this one has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT FRANCIS ACTUALLY SAID.    They are throwing the poor guy under the bus once again. 

Plus it is pretty comical that he won't give Bryan the directions.   All Bryan needs is the bearing of the Western border of the Johnson farm, and we'd be able to put this silly theory to rest."



I just know I'm going to wake up in the middle of the night laughing to think you could actually say on here that YOU are doing Richard Francis and his story any favors. My GOD what a ridiculous thought.

Nothing at all against Bryan Izatt but I think it would be a far better idea for all if a professional surveyor and particularly a company who did it in the first place did the measurements involved in this subject for Merion. At least they don't have to learn as they go or use Google Earth.

As far as letting you try to measure anything at Merion East you have got to be joking! You could never figure out how to do that. And you're never going to get a damn thing directly from me anyway with the attitude you exhibit on this discussion group. Obviously you have nothing at all left to use to defend that essay or yours so all you can resort to is to complain about us on every single post.
 
 

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have a question.

Despite what you think of Tom Paul and the way he's going about this, from a purely technical standpoint do you think that the methodology he's describing by having a surveyor compare the 1910 Lloyd deed with the 1928 Merion survey will yield the correct results?

Good question.  The answer is NO for a number of reasons.   

1.  It is not a transparent process.   
    - We will have no way to know what TEPaul will ask of the surveyor, or what the surveyor will answer.  It is all being done behind closed doors, and there is no reason for this at all.
    - No matter what the surveyor comes up with, we are at TEPaul's mercy to convey the information to us.   Given his abhorent record of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting, this would be ludicrous.  If the surveyor comes back with information that hurts TEPaul's claims, do you think we will ever hear about it?  Of course not.  At best we will hear a deceptive and twisted version.

2.  There is no need for a surveyor.  The western border of the Johnson farm is a straight line and plotting it is a simple matter.  All Bryan needs is the bearing. 

3.    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING BRYAN AND/OR ME FROM FIGURING THE CALCULATION OURSELVES.   This is true even if TEPaul hires a surveyor.  Verification is essential in this sort of thing, yet he refuses to open up the process to have the information verified. 

In short, with TEPaul involved in the process, we have absolutely no reason to trust it. But even if it was someone honest and capable, I WOULD STILL INSIST ON TRANSPARENCY AND VERIFICATION, and Bryan or any HONEST person would gladly welcome TRANSPARENCY and VERIFICATION.  That is the only acceptable way. 

In your opinion, should this type of exercise get to the Francis Land Swap answer?

In other words, I would expect that if the Land Swap happened before the November 1910 Land Plan, then those maps should show no difference.   Would you agree?

No.  TEPaul's theory doesn't make any sense, even on the face of it.    I have no idea what he thinks he is accomplishing it, but it seems like he thinks if he can get a measure from a surveyor, then we won't be able to refute him.  But the measure from the surveyor doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any analysis that will tell us anything about the swap.  He hasn't (and can't) explain exactly how this is supposed to work, because he has no idea. 

It is a bit like when you guys claimed that you had "respected scientist and expert researcher" who would undermine my methodology.   There was no substance to it.  You guys just wanted someone with supposed expertise, so you could flaut his credentials without ever addressing the issues.  Turns out the "expert" never came up with a single specific problem with my essay, and had no expertise whatsoever with this kind of research.  It was just another false claim of authority to justifiy an argument that was otherwise unjustifiable.

That is what is going on here.   TEPaul is trying to use the letterhead of a surveyor to bamboozle us into buying his flawed analysis without him having to actually prove it up. 

I hope that answered your questions. 

[DMoriarty]

Keep in mind, Mike,  there is only one side in this conversation that is actually willing to allow his theories to be vetted.   And only one side that is taking ALL THOSE THAT WERE THERE AT THEIR WORDS.   

If you guys need to THROW FRANCIS UNDER THE BUS to make your point.  Is it really worth it?   Was Francis crazy too? 


LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION:

Can you think of any LEGITIMATE reason why TEPaul is sandbagging yet again?  This time with publicly recorded documents?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have a question.

Despite what you think of Tom Paul and the way he's going about this, from a purely technical standpoint do you think that the methodology he's describing by having a surveyor compare the 1910 Lloyd deed with the 1928 Merion survey will yield the correct results?

Good question.  The answer is NO for a number of reasons.   

1.  It is not a transparent process.   
    - We will have no way to know what TEPaul will ask of the surveyor, or what the surveyor will answer.  It is all being done behind closed doors, and there is no reason for this at all.
    - No matter what the surveyor comes up with, we are at TEPaul's mercy to convey the information to us.   Given his abhorent record of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting, this would be ludicrous.  If the surveyor comes back with information that hurts TEPaul's claims, do you think we will ever hear about it?  Of course not.  At best we will hear a deceptive and twisted version.

2.  There is no need for a surveyor.  The western border of the Johnson farm is a straight line and plotting it is a simple matter.  All Bryan needs is the bearing. 

3.    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING BRYAN AND/OR ME FROM FIGURING THE CALCULATION OURSELVES.   This is true even if TEPaul hires a surveyor.  Verification is essential in this sort of thing, yet he refuses to open up the process to have the information verified. 

In short, with TEPaul involved in the process, we have absolutely no reason to trust it. But even if it was someone honest and capable, I WOULD STILL INSIST ON TRANSPARENCY AND VERIFICATION, and Bryan or any HONEST person would gladly welcome TRANSPARENCY and VERIFICATION.  That is the only acceptable way. 

In your opinion, should this type of exercise get to the Francis Land Swap answer?

In other words, I would expect that if the Land Swap happened before the November 1910 Land Plan, then those maps should show no difference.   Would you agree?

No.  TEPaul's theory doesn't make any sense, even on the face of it.    I have no idea what he thinks he is accomplishing it, but it seems like he thinks if he can get a measure from a surveyor, then we won't be able to refute him.  But the measure from the surveyor doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any analysis that will tell us anything about the swap.  He hasn't (and can't) explain exactly how this is supposed to work, because he has no idea. 

It is a bit like when you guys claimed that you had "respected scientist and expert researcher" who would undermine my methodology.   There was no substance to it.  You guys just wanted someone with supposed expertise, so you could flaut his credentials without ever addressing the issues.  Turns out the "expert" never came up with a single specific problem with my essay, and had no expertise whatsoever with this kind of research.  It was just another false claim of authority to justifiy an argument that was otherwise unjustifiable.

That is what is going on here.   TEPaul is trying to use the letterhead of a surveyor to bamboozle us into buying his flawed analysis without him having to actually prove it up. 

I hope that answered your questions. 

David,

Other than the part about the "respected scientist and expert researcher", which I haven't any idea to what you're referring, I think I understand you're feelings, but I do have another question.

Let's say Tom Paul was Saint Paul, and we had every reason to believe in his complete truthfulness and the transparency of the process.

Let's also say he has the 1910 Lloyd Map and the 1928 Merion Map.

Is there a methodology you'd outline for him to follow that you believe would accurately determine if the Francis Land Swap happened prior to December 1910 or after 1910?

[TEPaul]

By all means ask me any questions you would like me to ask a surveyor to measure about Merion at that time (1910 and 1911). I'll be glad to make all my questions to him and his results available on here. Maybe a few of you on here think this Google Earth thing is the way to generate accurate, exact and reliable measurements of Merion East back then but I don't. I think a professional surveyor is just as it's always been.

David Moriarty, I swear to God you really are skating a pretty God-damned fine line on here in the last few days with what you are saying about me and the material I have and what I have said about it.

I excpect to see Ran Morrissett tomorrow and I expect to speak with him about the way you've been carrying on with me and the constant criticisms and complaints and demands in the last few days.

But be that for whatever it may be if I do slam the shit out of you in the next few days for the way you're carrying on with your constant criticisms and complaints and demands on these threads day after day don't say you didn't expect it or deserve it.

So why don't you just shitcan that constant and every single post criticism, complaints and demands of me and hopefully the people on here can be treated to a decent discussion and information they may be interested in having and hearing? If you can't accept my opinion on what I have material-wise then at least don't wreck it for everyone else as you have been doing on these threads.

[DMoriarty]

Let's say Tom Paul was Saint Paul, and we had every reason to believe in his complete truthfulness and the transparency of the process.

Let's also say he has the 1910 Lloyd Map and the 1928 Merion Map.

Is there a methodology you'd outline for him to follow that you believe would accurately determine if the Francis Land Swap happened prior to December 1910 or after 1910?

1.  He needs to provide the information to all comers l so that the process is transparent and we can independently verify his claims.  

Beyond that, I am not telling him how to figure out anything.   I've already helped them way more than they ever deserved.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Well...I think that's too bad.

I would think that if a professional surveyor did it, they might issue a professional report which I believe Tom would certainly provide here for everyone's perusal and critique of the process, for better or worse.

I just would hope that if you two guys have a difference of opinion in the methodology that should be used to determine an accurate result that we could all live with, you'd outline the way you think it should be done here and now.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, why on earth do you think TEPaul would turn over anything or honestly and accurately represent anything that hurt his position?  When has he ever done this?

This is the man who repeatedly claimed that he had a deed definitively proving that Merion purchased their land (and a bunch more land) in 1909, but refused to provide his proof, instead demanding that we take his word for it.

Years later, when his "proof" finally surfaced, it was obvious that he was flat out lying.  The deed didn't even mention Merion and didn't even involve the golf course property!   I thought maybe he didn't understand it, but now that he tells us he is an expert in these things, he must ahve been lying.   Either way, he cannot be trusted to convey correct and accurate information.

A more recent example?  For almost a year he has insisted that Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd owned and CONTROLLED the Johnson farm.  Again a misrepresentation of the facts that he still makes daily.  ACCORDING TO CUYLER, HDC CONTROLLED THE PROPERTY; they took title in Lloyd's name. 

And MIke.  I did outline the methodology.    He needs to turn it over so we can verify the information.  That is all there is too it. 

Give me one legitimate reason for keeping publicly recorded documents from us?

[DMoriarty]

In fact, Mike, in the Findlay thread TEPaul admitted that they have always sat on documents that hurt their position, because they figured they knew the truth, and that we would misconstrue the documents!

So why on earth would it be any different with this information?

If he can twist it to where he thinks it will help, we will get it.   If he can't, we won't. 

We all know this is true, so why pretend it is not?

[DMoriarty]

For anyone out there who thinks I am being hard on poor old Tom, think again.

Everything I am saying is not only supported by a long record, it is also incredibly important in the context of this conversation.

And I am going easy on him.  There are much worse things I could and should say. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The only answer I can give you honestly is because I'm hoping all of us can finally agree on some objective measurement to finally bring this to some conclusion that will allow us to break through this logjam.

If there is a way to accurately and objectively determine from comparison of the maps that the Francis Land Swap happened either before or after November 1910 then I would think you'd also be willing to work to improve Tom's proposed process so that it's something permitting full discovery.

I don't think Tom feels that the Google method is something he's confident can be done accurately, so there should be a middle ground we can all agree on that ensures accuracy and transparency.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, you cannot come anywhere near objectivity without transparency.  That is what is so screwed up with this entire process.

There is a middle ground:  He can do it his way and let us do it our way.   

If our way is wrong, it'll be a great chance for him to prove me wrong and Bryan as well.   We all know how much he would love that. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The only answer I can give you honestly is because I'm hoping all of us can finally agree on some objective measurement to finally bring this to some conclusion that will allow us to break through this logjam. 

In this exercise there are only two objective measurements.  One is the metes that exist on the deeds (which through headings and distances describe the shape and boundaries of the property in question.  Neither David nor I nor anyone else can plot those metes and come up with a shape that is somehow different.  The metes are objective information; we can't change them.  We can only read them and plot them.  The other objective measurement is the area of a plot of land defined by boundaries which are in turn defined by the metes. You use a planimeter to measure areas of irregularly shaped objects.  Tom's surveyor will have one, either mechanical or electronic.  I have one I use that is available on-line for free.  I've tested mine on known areas and it is accurate.  I'm sure the surveyor has an accurate one too.  If we both measure the same plot of land we will get the same answer.  The area is an objective measurement.  The third area that relates to this is the placement of a plot of land on a map to allow us to visualize where it is.  A surveyor can do that.  We can do that.  What we both require are the metes and their starting location.  Given that, it is not possible that we will put it in different locations. 

David doesn't trust Tom and Tom doesn't trust David (or apparently me either).  Given that, and the objective measurements that are the metes, the only middle ground I can see is for each of us to do it our own way and then to compare results.  I'm 99% certain that we will get the same results.  If the unlikely event that we don't, then we can debate.   

If there is a way to accurately and objectively determine from comparison of the maps that the Francis Land Swap happened either before or after November 1910 then I would think you'd also be willing to work to improve Tom's proposed process so that it's something permitting full discovery.

I don't think Tom feels that the Google method is something he's confident can be done accurately, so there should be a middle ground we can all agree on that ensures accuracy and transparency.

Tom has an unfounded fear of current computer technology.  The so-called Google method is simply a way of placing a predetermined (by the metes) property boundary on a map and measuring its area.  I'd be happy to bet you a round of golf at my club that if we and a surveyor start from the same metes (and the metes are readable and complete) we'll get the same shape of property, located in the same place on a current map and measure it at the same area.  What confounds the current debate is that we are trying to use the available information (RR plats and land plans ) that are dimensionally questionable to plot land boundaries and calculate areas, when the metes to do it accurately are available.  Tom has them.  I suppose I could call the County Recorder of Deeds and buy the damn thing and then we wouldn't need to get past the Tom-created logjam on this particular subject.

I would note that over the last couple of days Tom has said that he'd give me the data after he'd given it to a surveyor; he's going to give it to a surveyor; he might give it to a surveyor; and, he might give it to one if it's not too expensive. So, is he, or isn't he?  When?  Having me do it is free - you can't beat that price.  and I can do it ASAP.

[TEPaul]

"In fact, Mike, in the Findlay thread TEPaul admitted that they have always sat on documents that hurt their position, because they figured they knew the truth, and that we would misconstrue the documents!"


David Moriarty:


There is no question whatsoever that you miscontrue just about any document to do with Merion. I can't think of a better example  than your essay "The Missing Faces of Merion." The entire thing almost totally misconstrues just about everything about Merion and what you seem to sense you can't miscontrue you constantly try to dismiss by ignoring it.

I suppose at the root of it all is you just can't imagine how Hugh Wilson could've done what he's been given credit for doing. To me that's just a pretty fundamental example of your inability to understand golf course architecture as well as a fascinating era in golf architecture.

And on top of that you seem to suffer from a most interesting condition in that if you simply think something you try to pass it off as a fact. You keep asking us for facts but yet you never produce any of your own, you only say you do. I think we know Merion's history well enough, and always have to see right through that transparent ploy. The same was true with a number of important people of Merion. They were actually most interested and expectant that someone may've found something about Macdonald's involvement with Merion East that they never knew. When they actually read your essay just about to a man they just shook their heads and said: "This is it? You're kidding, this is a joke."

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Wayne and I are looking for some other material, particularly a copy of one of those topo survey maps the Wilson Committee used. It's pretty amazing the places we've looked and are still looking, particularly Wayne. What that would most certainly do is show us clearly the limitation the Wilson committee was working against on that western boundary at the top of the "L" (the proposed Club House Road on their topo and not on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) that obviously made those last five holes difficult to fit in.

I think it's very possible one of those maps would clear up this entire Francis story and land swap.

I'm sure we all would be much further along at this point and perhaps you even could be measuring something at this point with your Google Earthing tools. But with David Moriarty on these threads things will never proceed very well. His attitude and constant complaints and criticisms of us just set back and hold back any of these Merion threads and I don't see that changing much, do you? 

I don't see anyone from any golf club doing anything cooperative with this site with someone on it like him and the way he's been with Merion and the people who actually have material from the golf club. Moriarty has either got to go or seriously clean up his act and attitude or this will always be an impasse on this website. He seems to think he has some automatic right to any and all material simply because he wrote an essay about the club no matter how poor or fallacious it is. In the real world things just don't work that way. Someone else on here should inform him of that and explain to him why that is, that is if anyone on here really wants to have a decent discussion of the club and course someday.

[henrye]

Bryan:

Wayne and I are looking for some other material, particularly a copy of one of those topo survey maps the Wilson Committee used. It's pretty amazing the places we've looked and are still looking, particularly Wayne.

Tom.  Great news and it would be even better if you guys find them.  I'm curious, however, about the other documents that either of you may have already uncovered.  Have you found anything further, which references MacDonald's role and/or any further correspondence between him and Merion?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

WHY won't you provide Bryan Izatt with the Metes and Bounds ?

What's the purpose of you hording this data and denying Bryan the information.

Your failure to provide information in your possession leads a prudent person to question your motives and your intellectual honesty.

AND, I''m saying that as your friend.

It just doesn't look good.

Give him the data and let's move on.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I would like to see that, as well, but that's up to Tom.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have had all this prior rancor and Tom would provide that info to Bryan privately, Bryan would do his calcs, Tom would get the maps survey-read, and on some agreed upon date in a week or so, each would present their findings.

I think that would be a very interesting exercise, and as someone who has spent way too much time on these threads, I'd LOVE to see if we can draw some final conclusions from this and hopefully wrap things up.

[TEPaul]

HenryE:

No, there is no further correspondences between Macdonald and Merion on record and no mention anywhere of any connection orther than the followiing;

1. Macdonald's June 29, 1910 letter to Lloyd about his June 1910 visit to Ardmore;

2. The Wilson Committee's April report to the board that mentions their visit to NGLA (March, 1911)

3. The mention of Macdonald/Whigam's single day visit to Ardmore on April, 1911.

Anything other than that is completely fabricated and total speculation by David Moriarty, the same man who demands FACTS from everyone else, yet provides none himself and constantly engages in completely unfactual speculation! What's new? 

There has never been a single mention or implication that Merion ever asked Macdonald/Whigam to design anything for them. He looked at their land in June 1910, he showed them his drawings from abroad for NGLA and he showed them NGLA the next day, he advised Wilson on some agronomy matters via pamphlets etc at NGLA and he and Whigam returned to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 and looked over their plans and said he would approve one that he claimed had the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world.

That is the sum total and the extent of the factual record and is the extent of what they described as his help and advice. Anything else is complete speculation and fabrication such as the implication that they ever asked him to design anything for them at Merion. The extent of the help and advice he provided clearly involved how they would do it themselves somewhat like he had with a committee at NGLA. Part of his advice involved agronomy and for that he recommended Wilson get in touch with Piper and Oakley himself as Macdonald had earlier. I have the first letter from Wilson to Oakley in which he said Macdonald mentioned that he should write him. By the time Wilson died fourteen years later there were well over a thousand of those letters with Piper and Oakley.

After that April 6, 1911 one day visit to Ardmore there is no other record of an architectural connection to Macdonald/Whigam. The last correspondence is a June 1911 letter from Macdonald to Wilson about lime and fertilizer quantity appliction on greens and that's the last of it.