Pine Valley and Topos

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I see no way to know if the camera was perfectly horizontal when the photo was taken.  If it was and the horizon line rises to the left, it seems much too modest and far away to be the short course hill.  The hill is relatively close and relatively abrupt it would seem to me.

[Bryan Izatt]

Really enjoying the mock ups by David, Bryan and Mike's soon to be revealed (I think) one.

I would only say that the elevation differences from the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and the 2nd green to the 3rd tee are pretty mild...maybe four or 5 feet each? Google Earth probably helps some but I did notice it told me the new back tee on 3 was 5 feet lower than the middle tee so it's not infallible.

Regarding the elevation/slope in the distance. There's a good size hill across the tracks from Pine Valley as well.

David,

Are you seriously threatening Mike with legal action?

Yes, indeed, Google Earth has its limitations.  Trying to intuit small elevation changes between points that are 10 or 20 yards apart is not one of its strengths.  It does not, for instance, have enough sensitivity to detect the elevation of the RR tracks relative to the land 10 yards on either side of it.

The hill across the tracks, is that over past Lake Lekau?  The topos and GE show a hill there that tops out at 150 feet.  Not nearly as high as the short course hill.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I'll take a bite on a possible non-compete clause. 

If Lumberton owned the land, and if TEP is correct that it was mined, then it would make perfect sense, if Lumberton sold it to Crump as a golf course property, for them to protect themselves against Crump turning around and selling sand in competition.  Since Crump was obsessed with building a golf course, he would have no trouble signing such a non-compete clause.

Sure, but how about if Crump was the one that did the mining...in small amounts and to local clubs.

I guess my bias against any heavy sand mining going on is I can't see why Lumberton would sell 184 acres for $8,750 8 years after buying it if they were actively mining it and the EPA report doesn't seem to indicate the date of the mining activity...

Do you mean, if Crump was doing the mining referred to in the EPA report?  If he was, was he doing it in contravention of the non-compete clause?  Was there a time limit on the clause?  Some non-compete clauses have a duration, after which all bets are off. 

As to why Lumberton would buy and sell in a relatively short time, who knows.  Maybe $8750 was more than they expected to make from mining it.  Hard to say if they were basing that on anticipated revenues or actual. 

I'm going to take a closer look at the topo vs the USGS one to see if there are obvious excavations.  Jeff seems to think there are.  If the stick routing topo is accurate and as-is at the time, then the area labeled "pond" sure looks to have been excavated compared to how it's depicted in the 1898 USGS survey. 

As another tangential thought, the top clearly shows a "station" on the RR line adjacent to the property.  Why would there be a station (or were the surveyors anticipating that a station would be built there) at that point?  Could it have been for mining operations?  Just wondering out loud?

[DMoriarty]

Jim and Bryan,

I have never been comfortable with any of these efforts, including my own, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the hills are way to big behind the supposed ridge line.  The camera is supposedly sitting about about 167 ft elevation taking a picture of a ridge line about a quarter of a mile a way, and the elevation of that ridge line is about 160 feet at the third tee, and gradually increases to the left and gradually decreases to the left of there.  So we are almost looking level.  Seven ft. isn't that significant over a quarter mile.  And the ridge line ought to block most of what is behind.  But it doesn't.  We have this forest back there, and we can see plenty of elevation.  Those hills would have to be huge to show up as the do above that ridge line.  And they aren't huge.  In short, I have my doubts that the photo was taken from the ridge line at all. Perhaps Mr. Brown tried to piece it together 50 years later like we did, to no avail.

But if not from the ridge line of the sixth hole, then from where?  I doubt anyone will believe me, but I think it may not have had anything to do with the area we have been studying.  I think it may have been from the water tower looking NE.  Not necessarily the water turned into a half way house, but he one that was next to it and significantly taller.  That water tower would have easily been the highest spot on the property.  And the ridge of the 11th hole is not as high as the ridge on the 4th, so it wouldn't block out the hills as much behind.  If one had been up on that water tower looking east and taken a photo, It is possible that one would see a site very similar to the view in the photo, except that the land had not been entirely cleared in the photo.   I am tired of making mockups, but check it out on google earth.

Just an idea.  

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Your radial elevation map is the closest so far to capturing reality, yet it is limited in the sense that it is point to point, in this case shooting over the highest point in the distance (the top of the 4th fairway) from the 6th fairway, whereas a photograph is not a point to point but a spectrum of various distant points translated to a 2-dimensional image.

In any case, one has to consider that if they are at the highest point relative to nearer points and essentially shooting over them, then any number of far distant points can appear on the horizon, sometimes miles away, that can affect perspective of that far horizon line.

I think so far the exercise is starting to look at the forest to avoid looking at the obviously identical tree(s), from some quarters.  

I'd be curious to see what the same exercise would conclude shooting from your position on the 6th fairway shooting down the ravine towards the white road and rail line in the distance.  

If it's too much a pain in the rear, that's understood.   Thanks.

I also wonder if the photographer was standing in an elevated position, perhaps on a ladder or atop a vehicle, or a ladder on a flatbed truck?   From my perspective, it appears the camera is well above any immediate foreground objects, even considering that the ravine was right in front of him.   What would it do to the elevation map viewpoints if the left edge was raised somewhere between 5-6 ft. (man standing or tripod), and a possible 10-15 feet in other scenarios?

I'm also not sure why you guys are working with that little tiny version of the picture.   The actual is much larger and not tied to the size restrictions on GCA.   If you save and blow up the image in question to 150-200 pct. you can see a hell of a lot better what you're looking at, but you may need to get yourself a lawyer.  


Oops...this just in....another subpoena.   Damn...

This time from George Crump himself, who informs me that Pine Valley actually owns the controlling creative rights to distribution of the photo in question through his estate, presently controlled by the club.  

Also, i do see the thread is getting fairly clogged on its own without my efforts and with Patrick coming back this weekend I'm sure between David's wild if technically snazzy speculation and lots of coming flailing green type from Pat the thread will need an enema or two by Monday.    

 
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Remind me - exactly what is the goal of this thread?  Does the use of topo maps still matter?

Back to lurking..

[Mike Cirba]

Dan,

Despite the tangential...well...tangents, the use of topos may still be relevant here depending on what Brian is able to find from the exercise he proposed below.

I'm going to take a closer look at the topo vs the USGS one to see if there are obvious excavations.  Jeff seems to think there are.  If the stick routing topo is accurate and as-is at the time, then the area labeled "pond" sure looks to have been excavated compared to how it's depicted in the 1898 USGS survey.

As another tangential thought, the top clearly shows a "station" on the RR line adjacent to the property.  Why would there be a station (or were the surveyors anticipating that a station would be built there) at that point?  Could it have been for mining operations?  Just wondering out loud?

Now, perhaps the train station was built simply to let people off in the middle of the woods, I don't know, and perhaps the land was simply owned by a mining company who just let people hunt on it without taking sand from the property for their own business needs, and perhaps all of those sandy roads running to and through the property were just for hiking but personally, I'm pretty curious to see what the reality was.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is another transverse elevation profile.  This one from near Patrick's preferred spot, nearer the 6th tee and looking directly across the 2nd green and 3rd tee (one is directly in front of the other).  I've made the field of view 75* so that you can select whichever section you want.  The field of view is in the first picture below.  The orange line is the top of the ridge/hill/nose.  The top of the hill gets progressively further away from the camera location from that angle. 

The second is the elevation profile.  You can overlay it to your heart's content.  To my eye it does not fit the elevation profile in the photo - either the near one or the horizon.

Mike, you can do the profile yourself looking down the ravine.  The picture is clearly not taken directly down the ravine.  I believe Jim has already stated that, absent trees, you could see the rail line looking down the ravine.  I do use the large photo.  I just don't post it full size since most people don't seem to scroll.

David, it is possible the caption of the photo is wrong and it is from somewhere else.  Can it be that so many things in the contemporaneous articles are gotten wrong?  It seems that points on all sides are dismissed as mistakes if they don't fit what we think we know or see.  If the Shelley photo and the Brown photo are the same picture, the Shelley one seems to me to show that the photo was taken from ground level, not from elevation.  Look at the tree trunks, brush in the foreground.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Well, the original thread premise was interesting, but talk about clogging up your own thread! Patrick got side tracked (and still is, asking me if Tillie was a liar when he described the property) on the train window story vs the hunting.  I think its 50-50 (maybe the new hit movie is about this thread?) on how he discovered it, but the clog comes from Patrick doggegly throwing what ever against the wall.  Even the photos above show that at least some of the land was srubby, and some was deep woods, but some black and white thinkers think it had to be all or nothing, based on some writings, rather than using their own eyes!

Who can forget Patrick proclaiming that PV wasn't even on this rail line, but really a small branch line?  Pat was wrong about that and a lot of other things, too.

I appreciate the intellectual brain power that has gone into analyzing one photo, but I am satisfied that Patrick is WRONG in thinking it was taken from 6 tee looking at 2 Green.  That angle would be virtually paralell to the road and tracks seen in the right of the photo and NO WAY would the tracks be visible from that angle.  If Patrick would just, for once, admit he is wrong, we might be able to have a productive discussion.

As to what that photo MIGHT tell us about the history of the design and construction of PV, all I can see is if the sandy road was a precursor to the housing road, which might tell us when housing was considered, or if it was just a haul road for construction.

Mike,

I have mentioned that commuter railroads in the early 1900's often built lakes and parks as an attraction to haul customers to.  If you look at the photo above, you can see a few structures at the dam of the lake across the tracks, and a growing over path from the station to that location.  Its possible this was one of those parks, and there are clearly some houses or farms around there, so maybe it was a "flag stop" for people who lived in that area.  Or, just to drop workers off at the mine.

I hadn't considered that the mining in the EPA study might have been done by Crump, but in reality, even commerical mining was a smaller operation than shown in your photo earlier in this thread.  I suspect it was the mining company, and that they simply found the sand contaminated, hard to reach, or otherwise not as suitable as other sites in the area.  It would be interesting to know the real story on that and the station to further our knowledge of how PV came to be.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan and Jeff,

Thanks, and I'm in agreement with a few additional thoughts.

First, I'm very curious to see what the differences in the 1898 topo map and the stick routings reveal in terms of changes to the property between those years.   As mentioned previously, I can't see pictures from this browser setting (except my own) or I'd help in that endeavor.

Also, although there is certainly foreground debris visible in the Shelly photo, it still looks lower than the height of an average man standing to me, so I don't think it rules out some elevated camera setting like a ladder or back of a truck.

Thanks again.

[Mike Cirba]

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

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

One thing I find interesting is that none of the holes along the tracks from 18 green back to the proposed 17 tee have trees either existing or proposed.    The Sumner train station can be seen drawn on the lower right of the map along the tracks.




Brian,

By the way, I agree with you completely and think the new, diverted focus on the angle of the far horizon line is a complete non-starter.

After seeing your post about the camera angle, even if that camera was tilted as little as one degree from level, it would alter the photo such that the midpoint of the photo would have a higher horizon line than the left side.

[DMoriarty]

David, it is possible the caption of the photo is wrong and it is from somewhere else.  Can it be that so many things in the contemporaneous articles are gotten wrong?  It seems that points on all sides are dismissed as mistakes if they don't fit what we think we know or see.  If the Shelley photo and the Brown photo are the same picture, the Shelley one seems to me to show that the photo was taken from ground level, not from elevation.

Normally I'd agree, but I think we need to be careful to distinguish between what is truly a contemporaneous source (the photo) and what may not be (the captions in the books.)   The Brown book was published fifty years after the photo was likely taken.   I have no idea where Brown got the information for the caption.  It could have been from something else in PV's archives, or it could have been his best guestimate based on what it looked like to him. Unless we learn more about the source of the caption, then I think we should go with the photo where the caption conflicts.

And I do think such a conflict exists.   Look at your radial elevation profile.   Had you ran your ray over the third tee you could have gone miles before any significant land form would enter the photo as anything more than a sliver.  Yet there is substantial land visible beyond the ridge line, even on the far left edge of the photo, and I don't think we are looking at land 10 miles away.  

As for your view that the felled trees indicate the camera was ground level, I disagree.   To me the camera looks to be above them, looking down on them.   Have you ever stood in a bunch of felled trees?   I think they would have been much more in the cameraman's face had he been standing at ground level.

Anyway, here is a very rough approximation of the angle I am suggesting.  There are a number of things that make sense to me about the angle, and a number of items in the photo seem to be explained by this angle, including the road, the white line, and a number of specific features about which I have been wondering.  The red line is the approx RR track from Google Earth.  When Cirba switched from thinking the line was the RR tracks to a road, I almost commented that if this was the case, then we'd soon discover that the white line was the RR tracks because of Cirba's Law; whatever he believes must be wrong.  

Maps show roads through this part of the course, including one called Baker's Hill Rd., and one called Pine Valley Country Club Road.   I think the road on the hill was PVCC Road Most likely used when clearing and to get to the water tower.  Baker's Hill Rd. was the section up the hill to the towers, and it may be barely visible cutting up the hillside through the trees from left to right.  Some other "roads" may be visible as well.

[JESII]

David,

Interesting thought. Do any of those old maps show a road down by the swamp/lake or are you thinking it could only be the tracks? The elevation seems to match train tracks, but the color doesn't. Maybe Atlantic Avenue ran all the way through in those days...it restarts today down beyond the property line...

For what it's worth, the felled logs in the picture look to me to be awfully close to the photographer as well...but I'm no expert at this sort of thing so would not argue the point. Let's keep in mind though that this was at the conception of Pine Valley, not once it had become one of the greatest courses in the world...and they were just clearing the property, most likely in the winter. Why would they bring out a 10 foot scaffold? Anyway, I've looked for ideas up and down the ravine that make more sense than what's in the caption but haven't come up with anything yet.

Bryan, the hill I was thinking of actually does fit in with David's new perspective on this. It would have been to the east of Lake Lekau and to the left side of his recent camera position/angle.


Bryan and Jeff,

Regarding the non-compete. I don't know if there was a duration, it was all about not becoming a mass producer. Crump was allowed to sell up to $100 worth, and only to golf clubs. Why would this be included? I understand the basic rationale behind non-compete agreements and I also understand the prudence in getting one from someone you don't deem to be in any way a competitor if it's possible which makes me think Crump himself asked for the leeway of small local distribution...whether it was out of the goodness of his heart to help local clubs, or just to turn over a few bucks while the course was being built. I also can't see how Lumberton would buy the land (for whatever) and begin their mining operations (the mines don't set up for free...) and then sell so soon after to a non-mining operation for only $9K. I doubt they had even begun mining. A good corporate records researchers can probably find out what they earned in these years and we'll have a good idea of what percentage of the company 185 acres and $8,750 was...

In any event, lacking and hard (or soft) evidence, I suspect the EPA findings were based on Crump's activities...either small scale mining, or basic course construction.



Also notable, and pertaining to the naturally occurring stream the feeds the pond on 5 and 18, it's source is evident in the Colt drawing and is still there today...well, actually a week ago!


David, another quick thought on your image from the water tower...there's no slope facing the camera in your range as there is (with the road running up it) in the picture.

[Mike Cirba]

This is not the spot, but it's an interesting theory.

However, as Jim points out, there is no significantly rising foreground in the photo, and given the timing, I don't believe the area of the 16th hole was even under construction yet in 1913 if memory serves.

I think the fault lies with trying to match the far horizon line, which is totally subject to the angle of the camera.   I think the focus on the long view is obscuring the features clearly evident in the foreground.

[DMoriarty]

Well there you have it.   Mike Cirba has pronounced that it is not the spot, so according to Cirba's Law it must be the spot. 

David,

Interesting thought. Do any of those old maps show a road down by the swamp/lake or are you thinking it could only be the tracks? The elevation seems to match train tracks, but the color doesn't. Maybe Atlantic Avenue ran all the way through in those days...it restarts today down beyond the property line...

I am not sure, but I would think it would either be the RR, clearings or a road running parallel to the RR, or some combination of the above.   As for other roads, I don't know about Atlantic Avenue, but but Google Maps shows "Pine Valley Country Club Rd." running from near the 16th tee all the way down to and around the 17th tee.   This may have been the road in question.

For what it's worth, the felled logs in the picture look to me to be awfully close to the photographer as well...but I'm no expert at this sort of thing so would not argue the point.

Could be, but it doesn't look that way to me.

Let's keep in mind though that this was at the conception of Pine Valley, not once it had become one of the greatest courses in the world...and they were just clearing the property, most likely in the winter. Why would they bring out a 10 foot scaffold? Anyway, I've looked for ideas up and down the ravine that make more sense than what's in the caption but haven't come up with anything yet.

 

We don't have a date certain for this photo, do we?  Why do you assume it came right at the beginning? Rather than a scaffold, I suggested the cameraman may have been up on one of the water towers.  Anyway, they reportedly seeded in September/October 1913, so I assume they had water storage by then. I don't know if the 15th hole had even been cleared at that point.  Do you?   

David, another quick thought on your image from the water tower...there's no slope facing the camera in your range as there is (with the road running up it) in the picture.

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but Google Earth indicates a slope down and then a gradual slope up a sidehill leaning right. Isn't that what the other photo looks like?

[Mike Cirba]

I will leave it to others...

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Out of curiosity, what version of GE are you using?  What "Eye Altitude" does it show for the picture below.

I'm having trouble placing the viewpoint of the picture below.  Could you describe it or mark it on a map?  Is it from near the water tower?  Or from south of the 6th green?  I don't see where you are seeing Bakers Hill Rd or PVCC Rd in it?  Or is that a separate thought from the picture?

David, it is possible the caption of the photo is wrong and it is from somewhere else.  Can it be that so many things in the contemporaneous articles are gotten wrong?  It seems that points on all sides are dismissed as mistakes if they don't fit what we think we know or see.  If the Shelley photo and the Brown photo are the same picture, the Shelley one seems to me to show that the photo was taken from ground level, not from elevation.

Normally I'd agree, but I think we need to be careful to distinguish between what is truly a contemporaneous source (the photo) and what may not be (the captions in the books.)   The Brown book was published fifty years after the photo was likely taken.   I have no idea where Brown got the information for the caption.  It could have been from something else in PV's archives, or it could have been his best guestimate based on what it looked like to him. Unless we learn more about the source of the caption, then I think we should go with the photo where the caption conflicts.

And I do think such a conflict exists.   Look at your radial elevation profile.   Had you ran your ray over the third tee you could have gone miles before any significant land form would enter the photo as anything more than a sliver.  Yet there is substantial land visible beyond the ridge line, even on the far left edge of the photo, and I don't think we are looking at land 10 miles away.  

As for your view that the felled trees indicate the camera was ground level, I disagree.   To me the camera looks to be above them, looking down on them.   Have you ever stood in a bunch of felled trees?   I think they would have been much more in the cameraman's face had he been standing at ground level.

Anyway, here is a very rough approximation of the angle I am suggesting.  There are a number of things that make sense to me about the angle, and a number of items in the photo seem to be explained by this angle, including the road, the white line, and a number of specific features about which I have been wondering.  The red line is the approx RR track from Google Earth.  When Cirba switched from thinking the line was the RR tracks to a road, I almost commented that if this was the case, then we'd soon discover that the white line was the RR tracks because of Cirba's Law; whatever he believes must be wrong.  

Maps show roads through this part of the course, including one called Baker's Hill Rd., and one called Pine Valley Country Club Road.   I think the road on the hill was PVCC Road Most likely used when clearing and to get to the water tower.  Baker's Hill Rd. was the section up the hill to the towers, and it may be barely visible cutting up the hillside through the trees from left to right.  Some other "roads" may be visible as well.

[Bryan Izatt]

One last try here.  The first picture shows the highest ridge line, in orange, through 2, 3 and 4 and on up to the short course.  I revised it in a couple of places to make it more accurate.




Following are a sequence of ground level views from the 6th hole.  Remember that these views have a much wider field of view than the picture.  Consequently things look further away than in the picture.  The views are literally at the ground elevation.  Presumably the camera used in our favorite picture was at least 5 feet off the ground, if not higher.  In each view you can see the orange ridge line defining the high point in the foreground.

First, the view from fairway at the tee end.




Then, a view from the fairway at the elbow of the dogleg.




Then, one from the fairway in front of the green.




Finally, one from the green.




From the tee end, there is very little in the way of horizon showing beyond the ridge.  As you progressively rotate the angle toward the green, more land beyond the ridge is visible.  Of course, the GE view does not mock up the trees that are on the hills behind the ridge.  

I guess I would go with the green end being where the camera was.  And, that the picture does not include the 3rd tee on the left side of the picture, despite what the caption says.

The white line is, I think, just a work road and not the RR.  The RR is too low to be seen at that angle over the ridge.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Just a few thoughts....

First, it does appear that our camera somewhere on the 6th fairway/green is elevated higher than 5 feet, possibly atop a truck, based on a few factors.   As shown in your exercise, the difference of even a few feet of elevation change makes significant differences to what you can see in the distance.

Second, if you plot the points further right, even down into the 18 fairway, I believe you'll be able to complete the picture.   Consider that as your camera moves up closer to the green, keeping the 3rd tee towards the left edge of the photo, more and more of what is right comes into play on the photo.   For instance, in your angle up near the green, shooting almost directly UP the 4th fairway, consider where the 4th green might be behind the ridge in that photo.   Then, consider where adjoining features like the clubhouse, 18th green, 5th tee, etc., might be and I think you'll  agree that there is plenty of room right of that green in the photo.

Finally, perhaps Jim can weigh in here...

He has told us unequivocally, several times, that you can easily and clearly see the tracks from the 6th fairway.   If a ridgeline is blocking it as you're saying then perhaps we either don't have the correct elevation or we aren't looking to the right far enough?

Just some thoughts...thanks for your efforts here.




Also, would enjoy hearing any findings and differences you see on the 1898 topo to the Stick routing topo map.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Out of curiosity, what version of GE are you using?

6.0.1.2032 (beta) (12/10/2010)  

What "Eye Altitude" does it show for the picture below.

I didn't save it with eye alt showing, but I have trying to use 190-195 to account for the tower.

I'm having trouble placing the viewpoint of the picture below.  Could you describe it or mark it on a map?  Is it from near the water tower?  Or from south of the 6th green?

 Taken from a few yards south water tower.  The tee in the foreground left is the 12th tee closest to the water tower.  Direction is east by northeast.   I was working on laying it over the land to line it up and I took out all the blacks, so the lake and the dark shadows are not there --you are seeing through to the next layer which is the photo in question.

I don't see where you are seeing Bakers Hill Rd or PVCC Rd in it?  Or is that a separate thought from the picture?

The roads show up on google maps road layover, but not as the viewpoint approaches ground level. The path (a white strip) from the lower right corner is Baker Hill Road.  It runs to the bottom of the hill, then juts left to cut in front of the 16th tees, then juts right and runs down the left side of the 16th and eventually to the RR tracks. At some point near the 16th tees it becomes PV Country Club Rd.

From your next post . . . .

Following are a sequence of ground level views from the 6th hole.  Remember that these views have a much wider field of view than the picture.  Consequently things look further away than in the picture.

I'd say this is the key question, and not something we can just assume or "remember."   You are assuming a narrow field of view and I don't think the old photo backs this up.   To me you guys are applying too narrow a field of vision and the distances viewable on the photo don't seem to back this up.

The views are literally at the ground elevation.  Presumably the camera used in our favorite picture was at least 5 feet off the ground, if not higher.  In each view you can see the orange ridge line defining the high point in the foreground.

In my version of Google Earth the "eye altitude" is NOT at true ground elevation.  A six foot adjustment seems to be built in.

For example, here is a very similar perspective than the one from my layover, this one from a highpoint right in front of the existing tower.  The elevation is 169 ft. but the eye altitude is 175 ft.  




As for your various angles, none of them even come close to showing the hills and trees beyond your ridge line as shown in the old photo, so I don't think any of your views actually work.   For that much of the background to be visible, "the ridge line" in front must have been much lower (or almost nonexistent.)

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

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

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

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

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



It would look something like one of these...

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




Or this one, taken from close to the green.

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

[JESII]

Mike,

To clarify my earlier comment/thoughts regarding the view from the 6th green...There is no question the tracks would be in plain sight from there if there were no trees...but there are trees. A week ago they looked to be about half deciduous and half pine. There are no landforms that would block this view, even though the view is only of about a 50 yard section of track.

I think it's important for you to consider the overall orientation of the ravine in those pictures when you suggest that the 18th fairway may have been in view. This is physically impossible for two reasons. First, the picture makes it clear to me that the camera was looking across the ravine at some angle and the right edge of the picture is still of the far side of the ravine so the 18th fairway doesn't fit. Secondly, the hill the 9th green is built on would also block your view of the 18th fairway...

[Bryan Izatt]

Came across another picture; could it be another picture of the PV jungle as the clearing was just beginning?







Well, probably not, since it was less than a mile from my place and today.  It did give me a sense of perspective of the fallen trees in the foreground.  Trunks of 1 to 2 foot diameter and no more than 5 yards from the camera.

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

On to more analysis of the picture.  It is becoming clearer to me that my presumption of a 45* field of view and the field of view provided by the GE ground view are both either wrong or misleading.  If the field of view of the camera was more like 35* or 40* then you would get a more zoomed in picture.  If you narrow the field of view, as in the picture below, and exclude the 3rd tee on the left and the 5 tee on the right, then you get a ridge line and a horizon line that makes more sense and is more aligned with the picture.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

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

I agree that the ridge of #9 would block a good deal of what would be visible in the 18th fairway, but objects on the far end like the road and railbed would be in view for some portion, I think.  

Bryan,

Nice logs.   I guess David thinks if he makes them disappear from his latest mockup he's not still clogging up the bowl!  

Seriously, does the distant horizon perspective make more sense with the camera viewing the 150 foot hill above Lake Leuka?

I also have to wonder what else is back there in the topo in terms of elevation points?  

***EDIT*** I went back and looked at a topo map from across the tracks, Bryan.   The 150 foot ridge seems to extend the width of the photo, with a peak of 157 feet.  The right side of the photo also would include a 170 foot ridge behind the 150 foot one.

Plus, I'm not sure what the margin of error is in Google Earth in their ground-view for objects in the distance.   I was playing around with a course i know intimately and I have a hard time believing I could make any ground level photo match exactly to what is getting drawn on those views.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Here's a blowup of the early photo of the 18th hole. 

The highly elevated train tracks and adjoining sandy dirt road are seen on the right.   I believe you can even see the train station up past the green.

On the left you can see the ridge of today's 9th green.   Beyond, you can see the gap created as the ravine extends down from the 6th hole, and which must be crossed on the approach to 18.   

It looks to me like there is a fairly good gap one could see down from the height of the 6th fairway, particularly sans trees.   I'm not sure if it's 50 yards, or perhaps more like the last 100?

Please scroll to the right to see the whole picture...thanks.