Pine Valley and Topos

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I see you have been saving up the green ink.  Could you gracefully accept that people, other than you, sometimes change their minds based on the discussions here.  That's a good thing, isn't it?

Bryan, what you fail to realize is that Mike's allegation that the white road/path was the RR tracks, was agenda driven.
He felt he needed the white road/path to be the RR tracks to try to validate the train myth.  And as such, he made his declaration and defended it, over and over again, despite evidence to the contrary.  WHY, because an admission that it wasn't the RR tracks hurt his cause and secondly, because it demonstrated that yet another wild theory of his, an agenda driven theory, was proven wrong.  Do you see that pattern ?
He also deliberately ignored an enormous flaw in his comparison since the land in the photo was already cleared, but, Mike presented the issue as if the land was so open that a view from the tracks was unobscured..

What you don't understand is that he can't be objective, his view of anything and everything is that which will support his agendas, in this case, the train myth, a myth that Shelly debunked.

And, don't forget, we had the "Expert" on Pine Valley, TEPaul, claim in an email that those were the RR tracks.
Let's not forget that error when evaluating other items where he issues proclaimations

I'm sure all of us would love to see your pictures.  You will post them, won't you?  Or, are you going to be like the resident of Happydale Farms and withold them?    

I already sent them to someone to post, since I don't know how to post them.
Unfortunately he couldn't open the file, so I'm hoping to send the pictures, individually, to him this weekend.

I'm not sure how helpful pictures of the current trees are relative to what was there a century ago.  

So, it's your position that forests never regenerate ?
That trees just grow, mature and die, all at the same time ?
Ditto for undergrowth ?

The forest today is not much different from the forest 100 years ago


I'm willing to agree, even without seeing your pictures, that today's trees are full, bushy and impenetrable.

Are you willing to agree that the left-over specimen trees in the old pictures from Brown, the 18th tee, and from the 4th tee are pretty scrawny looking?

NO.

You're looking at photos taken AFTER the land was cleared.
Why do you reject and/or claim that Simon Carr and Tillinghast were lying when, independent of one another, their contemporaneous accounts tell us that the land was a dense forest with "Jungle" like undergrowth ?   Tillinghast claimed, that after two (2) years on the property, it remained dense woods with undergrowth so thick that the land was hidden from mortal eyes.

Does that sound like sparse areas of trees ?
Does that sound like the land had open sandy areas.

You just want to disagree with me, and I understand that, I understand your desire to try to be right just once, but, why are you disagreeing with Simon Carr and Tillinghast, two independent, third party, contemporaneous witnesses ?

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

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

Google earth does have the resolution to indicate the elevation of the tracks and the 18th fairway, and the 18th fairway is at a higher elevation, as is the 18th green, 1st tee, 1st fairway, 1st green, 17th green and the entire 17th fairway.  The only area lower than the RR tracks near # 17 tee is the 16th green and 14th green area, and that was all swamp, hardly ideal land for golf.  And, that's without the trees.  With the trees you can't see a thing.

The photos will show that you can't see anything south of the RR tracks from in front of the 17th tee to in front of the 18th tee and next to the 18th green.  You may remember that Cirba claimed the tracks from # 18 green to # 14 green were 18 feet above the course.
Brauer made the absurd claim that the RR tracks were 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway, despite Google Earth readings to the contrary.

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

I tend to think that it was taken from somewhere between the elbow of # 6 and the begining of the 6th fairway.
Look at the convex land form to the right.
That landform is non-existant from the 6th green all the way to the 6th tee, where is commences.

I agree with your observations on the water tower.  That was one hypothesis put forward by David.

Which concave and convex landforms are you talking about?  Can you point them out in a picture, or an aerial, or on the stick routing topo.  It's hard to agree or disagree with your argument without knowing where these landforms are.  Is it possible that they were created in the construction of the course?

Please examine the right side of this picture.
You'll see the convex nature of the landform to the right.
The landform on # 6, when viewed from the green or green approach is concave, with no convex landform visible.
If you've ever been to PV and stood on the 6th tee, that becomes quickly apparent


What the short and tall trees look like today is pretty irrelevant.  

Not at all, to the contrary, the short trees provide a denser canopy at eye level and 10 feet above eye level, since the taller trees are mostly trunk until the branches grow out at higher heights.

You keep arguing that specific parts of the course are not visible from the tracks.  That's not the point.  

Of course it is.  You've never been to Pine Valley, hence you have no sense of the views from the tracks, views that are entirely blocked by the landforms adjacent to the tracks.  When you add in the trees and thick underbrush, it's an inpenetrable view.

The point is that there were hills and valleys that may have looked like good golfing territory to Crump.  

Bryan, you've leaped from being unfamiliar with the view to just plain stupid.

If you can't see the hills and valleys because the landform immediately adjacent to the tracks (south) blocks that view, how can you see anything ?

Please tell me where, from the tracks, GAC could see hills and valleys.
I've been going to Pine Valley for over 47 years and you can't see a thing from the tracks and/or East Atlantic Ave due primarily to the landforms south of the tracks AND the dense trees and undergrowth.  So tell me what did GAC see and from where ?

Did he see the swamp by 14 & 16 green ?  Was that ideal for golf ?

What could he see that wasn't blocked by the landform and the trees ?

Jeff Brauer stated that when he drove on East Atlantic Ave he could see the hills.
Unless Jeff is Clark Kent, it ain't so.
Just look at this photo and tell me what you could see, from East Atlantic Ave, south of the RR tracks before you get to the cleared land that's PV

 ,

Perhaps you could focus your arguments on whether or not any hills or valleys were visible from the tracks and whether this section of property looked different from the rest of the train trip.

Bryan, it's a BARRIER, a DENSE VISUAL BARRIER.
I just drove on East Atlantic Ave this week.
You CAN'T see anything south, just dense woods and undergrowth, maybe 25 feet into the woods max.
And, the land rises up in most areas further blocking any view south.

WHY do you keep trying to FORCE a view that's not there ?
Especially when you've NEVER been to Pine Valley.

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

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

When you couple that article with the fact that GAC began clearing the land immediately after the official purchase you have to wonder.
Did GAC craft a routing the day after the purchase, thereby knowing where to clear ?

I suspect that work was done, in the field or on paper, prior to the purchase.

Time will tell if that's a valid premise.

One things for sure, we won't make rapid progress if your sole or primary motivation is just to disagree with me.

Gotta run, but, "I'll be back"

[DMoriarty]

I don't know about your analysis of the trees in the foreground. You seem to be adjusting tree heights and distances do suit your notions, and this seems to be backwards thinking methodology.  If you thought they were 30 feet, then why not go with that? I understand your point was that the picture was not wide in the foreground, but I don't think picture itself supports this point. Look at your log picture and compare it to the photo from the Shelly book.  The old pic, even with the width cropped significantly, significant horizontal lengths of logs are visible even the the  most immediate foreground.   Or look at the very immediate foreground the photos from your quiz, focusing on the width of the tee showing, then compare that to the log pic.  

I think I did alright on the quiz, better than I expected, as it is very difficult considering I had no reference point and no familiarity with the area, and not even google earth.  Plus is very difficult to tell the foreground elevations and distances without knowing your depth of field setting.  Still, the only number that surprises me is the 40 foot drop.   My guestimate was to the beginning of the actual fairway, same point as you described for the distance to the cart path guess.  Is it really a 40 foot drop to the beginning of the fairway?  Or is that to the bottom of the hill?  If it is to the beginning of the fairway, then what is the drop to the bottom low point?

__________________________________________________

Moving along to the photo supposedly from the 3rd tee . . .

Most importantly, do you agree that the two old photos were taken with similar points of view, and possibly from the same ridge?

It would be hard to accept that it is from the 3rd tee looking south or south-east.  It appears that the man is standing on the edge of a ravine.  The third tee has a more gentle drop off looking towards the the 3rd green/4th tee.  The topography is different looking north or north-east from the 3rd tee.  Could it be yet another reporting error?

The caption makes no sense to me, but then I haven't been there.  Jim and/or Patrick?  

My point is that these "captions," whether from contemporaneous photos or from books written a half century later, have to be taken with a grain of salt, if they are to be relied upon at all.

Wherever it is, it doesn't look like thick jungle-like forest.  I see some sandy areas and areas in the ravine where trees are relatively sparse.

 

It looks fairly dense to me. There is a lot visible in the other picture that is not visible in this one.

Do you think that the black area near his feet is his shadow.  If it is and it's winter then we are looking north or north-west.

Could be, but I don't know that you could say it was winter as opposed to fall or spring.

The man is wearing a heavy coat so it is likely winter.

I'd go as far as to say it was probably not summer, but it certainly could have been fall or spring.

Just because it was published in May doesn't mean it was taken in May.  It could have been taken weeks or months before.

I think I said this above.  But it could have been taken in April or May just as easily.  Whether correct or not, from the caption, it sounds like it was taken after the planning had begun. They were reporting on Pine Valley almost every month.  Why would they have held the picture until May?   Is it possible that AWT took the photo when he was there the previous month? His detailed report was in the April edition, and perhaps the photo wasn't ready so they held it to May?

How many months could they have been clearing trees if the property was only bought in the fall of 1912.  I think you have previously stated that you've have or have seen pictures of the machines they used to extract the trunk and roots of the trees.  Sounds like a time consuming job.  Perhaps it is another Tillie myth that they had the grounds  for 7 holes cleared, graded and ready for seeding by April.  Wasn't the stick routing supposed to be from May?  Sure didn't look in the topo that they knew where they wanted to put the first seven holes, let alone be ready to seed them.

I don't know, Bryan . . . there were a number of reports that the clearing progressed rapidly, at least on the first seven holes (1 through 6 and the 18th.)   The topo map is dated April. but it mentions green sites marked on the ground, and we have no idea when this occurred.   There were reports describing these seven holes from April and AWT even distinguishes between those seven, and the 7th hole, which had not yet been completely cleared. I think there were reports that portions of the course were playable by fall, weren't there?

So I guess you could be correct to dismiss the state of things in this picture -it could have been an old picture, and/or it could be that AWT is exaggerating.  On the other hand, it seems as likely, or more likely, that substantial clearing had taken place by this time as AWT and others reported, and that the picture was not an old file photo but relatively current.

If so, then I have trouble understanding how it could have been from either the ridge of the 6th hole or even from the 3rd tee.

Have you taken a moment to consider how it is that so much of the background is visible in both these pictures? We are looking at quite a bit of elevation visible behind the initial ridge.  I am still hoping you will explain to me how that could be if the photo is from where you think it is?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I presume the EPA was formed in about the 1970's and that whatever study they did had to be later than building the course.  The why of the study sounds like it would be something to cause a tea partier a seizure, but that is a whole nother story.  It seems most likely that the entire site was surveyed as part of some Phase I EAW when they did the range or short course, but that is just a guess.

Jeff, many retro studies contain caveats relating to the accuracy of the information, since information gathered in retro studies is often non-sourced material.  A review of the study, a study done 60 or more years after 1912, would allow you to pass on the merits of that study.

TePaul said this in an email:

" the EPA historic analysis says that a number of the areas below any ridges on that 184 acres were mined.

The most prominent being below the ridgeline that curves through the property from #6 around the left of #5 (and perhaps front),

If that were true, how could the Brown/Shelly photo depict that land in its native state ?
Does the area in the foreground, from one of the earliest photos of the site, look like it was mined ?
There are mature trees throughout the foreground with the land in its native state, showing no signs of any mining operation.
It looks like virgin land, where a shovel has never penetrated the earth.
How could that area have been mined ?



Remember too, that TEPaul claimed that the white road/path was the RR tracks.
So, no one should accept an opinion as a statement of fact, absent supporting documentation

behind # 9, along #18, #10,



Does that hill to the left, the one TEPaul described above, look like it was mined ?
Those trees look fairly tall, certainly more than 5 years old.
The photo was taken in 1917.

and all along the ridgeline along #11, #12, #13/#14 and #15 and on down to the fall-off down to #14.

This would also include in front of #2 and along some of the left side of the second half of some of #4 and perhaps even in front of #18 green. "

Mining operations rarely operate sporadically, with multiple remote sites, like the front of # 2, the front of # 18, the front of # 14, along # 6 and along # 10.

I think you'd have to see the report to assess its substance.
Perhaps the sites were mined in 1784 or 1815 ?
One cannot accept vague references to reports structured 60+ years after the purchase of PV.

After reading this, I think I was able to pick out a lot of topo signatures that correspond on that stick topo.  BTW, we need to remember that the scale of mining in those days was probably far less than the modern photo Mike posted a few pages ago.

That's not true, costs were always a concern in terms of the mining operation and more importantly, the transportation of the material mined.
Large scale operations maximized economies of scale.

If the land was mined, as you claim, then you're calling both Simon Carr and Albert Tillinghast liars, since they stated the property was dense woods with undergrowth so thick Carr called it "Jungle" like and Tillinghast stated that two years after ownership the woods were so dense and the underbrush so thick that the land beneath them was "hidden from mortal eyes"

How do you reconcile Carr and Tillinghast's independent, contemporaneous, on site statments with an alleged EPA report done 60+ years later ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Shelly's caption is clear, he states that the photo is taken ACROSS the 4th TO the second green.

In fact, he goes further, he states the photo was taken from the height of the PRESENT 6th Fairway.
NOT the green, but, THE FAIRWAY, ACROSS the 4th TO THE 2nd GREEN.

You can twist things as much as you want, when someone says a sightline is across a feature, that means that the sightline traverses that feature and when someone states that the view is TO a specified object, like the 2nd green, that's what they meant, that's the object they were looking at.

As to the white road/path theory, the current macadam road does NOT veer to the left as it does in the Brown/Shelly photo.
And, the land falls off precipitously to the right of the macadam road, especially as the road ascends the hill.
That's clearly NOT in evidence in the Brown/Shelly photo.

As to Mike being able to identify the exact location of the 3rd green, are you going to trust a guy's photo interpretation skills when he claimed that the white road/path was the railroad tracks, based upon his photo interpretation, or rather, his agenda driven photo interpretation skills.

That ascending convex shoulder to the right in the Brown/Shelly photo leads me to believe it was taken from the begining of the 6th fairway.
I think a current photo, showing the rising convex nature of that landform, the landform that became the 5th green and 6th tee, will lend credence to that premise.

FYI, the RR tracks and East Atlantic Ave are well below the 18th green and blocked by that landform.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Would you agree that it seems unusual that clearing would begin so quickly after the purchase ?

How would they know where to clear if they didn't have a plan in place ?

Jeff Brauer, disingenuously claimed that I stated that they cleared the entire site, but, I never made any such claim.
But, he makes numerous unsubstantiated claims about me, that's just his modus operandi.

Early photos show selective clearing, not indescriminate clearing.

So, how would he know where to clear unless he had a preconceived notion, a notion that predated the purchase.

Shelly indicated that GAC was familiar with the land from his hunting experience.
It's doubtful that he bought the land without first inspecting it.
And, if he inspected it with the intent of building a golf course, wouldn't he begin to have some design concepts prior to the purchase ?

Several things come to mind.

What ever happened to the map of Camden County GAC requested in 1910 ?

Wouldn't the request for a map of the area, an area he was intimately familiar with since he grew up in that area, indicate that he wanted a map for other reasons ?  Perhaps to lay out a golf course on land he was familiar with ?

Doesn't the 1927 article claiming he owned or had rights to the land pique your curiosity ?
What if he owned usage rights to the land prior to Oct/Nov of 1912 ?

If he hunted on the land, and was familiar with the terrain, why would he need a map of that land, unless, he wanted a topo map to aid him in laying out his holes ?

The first 4 holes at PV are brilliant in their triangulation and individual hole designs.
Do you think a novice crafted them the night after he purchased the land ?
Then, within days, cleared the area of holes 1-4 ?

Surely you don't think PV was a drive-by design and routing, do you ?

The chronology of events doesn't lend itself to a singular light bulb moment of genius from a novice, it doesn't make sense that PV was an instant or turn key ready design a day or two after the land was purchased.  Yet, clearing on the 184 acre parcel began almost immediately after purchase and the first four holes were in place almost immediately.  And, they weren't just ordinary holes, they were exceptional holes, brilliant holes.  And we're to believe these designs came to him, a novice, spontaneously, or coincidental with the purchase.  I don't buy it.
And, GAC bought the land himself, he didn't wait for syndication or incorporation, he just went out and bought it.

What novice does that ?

He found and selected the land by himself, closes by himself and shortly thereafter begins clearing specific areas.
The timeline of events and the nature of the particular events don't make sense.

Was Colt in NY, Philly or AC in 1911 ?

Is there substance to the 1927 article ?

Did GAC have usage rights to the land prior to purchase ?

I don't know, but, I'd sure like to find out, wouldn't you.

[Mike Cirba]

One of those buildings is likely the home of Sumner Ireland, whose home overlooked the land Crump purchased from across the railway.

This is additional evidence that the angle of the photo(s) is looking towards the railroad, up the 4th hole and not across it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about me, twisting my posts and even mentioning me altogether.  I have done nothing disengenous, not a single thing.

You mentioned in one post that the 1-4 holes were completely cleared, not the whole site, and I did ask you what your source was.  But you twist that so you can call me a liar on a thread I haven't participated on much, and none for the last two weeks.  You also said that I said I could see "hills" on approach.  I said I could tell the character of the land varied.  You have also said I am agenda driven, which is ridiculous.

I only hope that anyone reading this crap can tell the difference between those of us interested in history, and those of us interested in acting five years old or less.  I have really lost all respect for you, and I would think that anyone who reads your drivel about words having this or that absolute meaning over what someone sees with their own eyes or in photographs will realize you are arguing because you like to. 

I don't know how true the Tillie statement is, but really, TMacs "three sources vs one" is a short, easy to understand argument.  Your "throw poo against the wall" arguments - including the lies and fallacies you have told on this thread (and which Mike C documented well a few days ago) isn't very convincing.

Again, please, leave your false accusations about me out of this as you drag it another 44 pages.  Thanks in advance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about me, twisting my posts and even mentioning me altogether.

Jeff,

I'm not lying or twisting your posts.
As to mentioning you, you're like a whiney women.
In your reply # 1385 YOU mentioned me, and claimed that I stated that he entire area had been cleared of trees.
That's a blatant lie.

Here's your statement, and it's completely false:

"On the other hand, at one point, Patrick reported that the entire area was cleared, leaving no trees between holes as would be common.  Perhaps he could chime in as to whether he knows that from another source, or he presumed that from his take on this very photo."


[/color] I have done nothing disengenous, not a single thing.

You don't call fabricating remarks being disingenuous.

I NEVER claimed the entire area was cleared, as you allege

You mentioned in one post that the 1-4 holes were completely cleared, not the whole site, and I did ask you what your source was.  

Would you cite that post/reply # for us.
Failing to do so would you admit that you fabricated remarks attributable to me.

But you twist that so you can call me a liar on a thread I haven't participated on much, and none for the last two weeks.  
Jeff, when you make things up, and lie, irrespective of the number of posts you make, I'm going to call you on it.
I haven't participated much in the last two weeks either.  Since when is sparse participation an excuse to lie ?

You also said that I said I could see "hills" on approach.  I said I could tell the character of the land varied.  You have also said I am agenda driven, which is ridiculous.

I'm going to arrange for a photo to be posted that shows the double row of dense trees south of East Atlantic Ave to the RR tracks and the second dense forest of trees south of the RR tracks along with the ascending land, which blocks any human view of the property/PV

I only hope that anyone reading this crap can tell the difference between those of us interested in history, and those of us interested in acting five years old or less.  I have really lost all respect for you, and I would think that anyone who reads your drivel about words having this or that absolute meaning over what someone sees with their own eyes or in photographs will realize you are arguing because you like to.  

The photos that will be posted should provide ample evidence for those viewers wishing to determine who's telling the truth.

I don't know how true the Tillie statement is, but really, TMacs "three sources vs one" is a short, easy to understand argument.  Your "throw poo against the wall" arguments - including the lies and fallacies you have told on this thread (and which Mike C documented well a few days ago) isn't very convincing.

I've asked you dozens of times to cite the alleged lies and fallacies, but, in each and every case, you failed to do so.
You seem content to make allegations absent anything to support them.

If you will identify, by reply #, Mike Cirba's "documentation" I will address his points, specifically.

Again, please, leave your false accusations about me out of this as you drag it another 44 pages.  Thanks in advance.

YOU were the one in your reply # 1385 who brought me into this.
When I defend myself and prove that you're not telling the truth, you get indignant.
I made no false accusations, I QUOTED your own words, and YOU LIED.

Accept the consequences like a man and not a whiney washerwoman.

[Mike Cirba]

For those still looking for facts instead of nonsensical proclamations...

David, that was a very good find.   This should help answer the questions you posed.   Sumner's place overlooked the property Crump purchased from across the railroad to the northeast.   It should also help us to determine the very wide field of view of the camera.

[Mike Cirba]

Given the relationship of the houses in the distance across the tracks, I'd say this is roughly what we're looking at...

[Mike Cirba]

The photo was likely taken from the high, sandy ridge one can see in the left center of this photo, out beyond the 3rd green.

I've left it oversized (please use the blue scroll bar below) so folks can also see what the land looked like in winter, the mix of conifer and deciduous trees, the height of the trees, as well as the easily viewable landforms in the areas untouched by Crump.

[Mike Cirba]

Here in this enhanced view of a section of Crump's stick routing, one can see in the top center the likely location of the photo, right in the northest corner of the property, almost shooting straight down the length of the 4th, as well as down the length of the ravine that crosses in front of the 18th green, which is why one can see the entrance road as a white horizontal line on the Brown photo (with the elevated bed of the railroad tracks right behind the road).   Ironically, it seems our photo was taken almost from the same orientation as the following 1931 aerial, aimed almost directly at Sumner Station.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With respect to the views from the tracks, here’s a photo taken from the front entrance looking west.  You will note the dense forest and undergrowth south (left) of the tracks. Also notice how the adjacent land immediately begins to rise above the tracks, helping to obscure any view to the south.  Also notice how the tracks are flush to the ground.

Remember that Jeff Brauer claimed that while driving on East Atlantic Ave, looking south, he could discern the land form.
Perhaps Clark Kent could look through the trees between the road and the RR tracks, and the trees south of the RR tracks in order to see the land south of the tracks, even though a good deal of it is elevated above the road,  but, Jeff Brauer couldn't have.


Here’s a photo, taken from the same location, looking East. Note the dense forest and undergrowth south (right) of the tracks. In addition, notice how the adjacent land immediately begins to rise above the tracks.


Also note, in both photos, how the tracks are flush to the ground and not elevated 18 feet above the golf course.

The next photo is taken from a location north of the mid-point of the 17th fairway at the tracks, looking west. Please note that the tracks are flush to the ground. Actually, the tracks are in a hollow, sunken below the adjacent land.


The next photo is taken from the same location, but looking south. Please note the huge, steep hill immediately adjacent to the tracks. This hill blocks any view to the south. This hill extends from the beginning of the 17th fairway, up to the 17th green, 18th tee down to the base, just short of the 18th fairway.


The next photo, taken from the 17th tee shows the right ridge between the RR tracks and the 17th fairway from the 17th tee.

 Next is a photo of the two ridges flanking the 17th fairway, looking west.  Note that the hill on the right blocks any view south (to the left) of the 17th, and in addition to that ridge, that the second hill, the one separating # 17 and # 16 blocks any view south, making a view of the 16th and 15th fairways impossible.  Hence, the landforms alone prevent any view of the golf course.  Holes 17, 16 and 15 are hidden from view from the tracks. When you add in the dense forest and undergrowth described by Carr and Tillinghast, it quickly becomes apparent that you can’t see a thing from the tracks.  


As you ascend 17 fairway, the tracks fall further below you.  


Obviously, from 18 tee the tracks are significantly below, not 18 feet above as Mike claimed.

From the beginning of # 18 fairway, the tracks continue to be below.


The hill that supports 17 green, 18 tee, 11 tee, 10 green, 10 tee and 9 greens, blocks any view south from the tracks, even if there were no trees.








Regarding the 6th hole, look at the view from the tee and note the concave nature of the rim and descending terrain.


From the front portion of the 6th fairway back to the tee, notice how the land forming the 5th green and 6th tee is convex, similar to the right side of the Brown/Shelly photo.


Here are additional photos of the concave rim from various locations on the 6th fairway.






Looking back toward the 6th tee.


Nowhere will you find a convex landform until you get to the 6th tee and 5th green complex.

That’s all for now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The photo was likely taken from the high, sandy ridge one can see in the left center of this photo, out beyond the 3rd green.

I've left it oversized (please use the blue scroll bar below) so folks can also see what the land looked like in winter, the mix of conifer and deciduous trees, the height of the trees, as well as the easily viewable landforms in the areas untouched by Crump.

Mike, are you stating that the land where the 6th fairway is wasn't cleared ?
The land that's on the horizon ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Do you think in the intervening 100 years since this photo was taken, someone in the club might have planted trees along the tracks to aid in the sense of seclusion and privacy?   Something tall, like Scotch pines, or any of the other type of stately trees Crump and others planted over the years perhaps?

Also, didn't Tillinghast say that Crump spotted the land in the winter?   And didn't Tillinghast say that Crump was intrigued by the general hilliness of the property in contrast to flat south Jersey?   So why then are you showing us hills in an effort to dispute that?

I'll go down in another few months once the leaves are off the trees and the underbrush dies away and see what there is to see.

Just saw your question...the land of the 6th fairway was cleared but not the land in the right of the picture.   As seen in the stick routing topo Crump's property ended up in that corner.

I think if you really want to understand the property and it's origins, it might be worth asking why the 1898 Topos don't match the subsequent ones.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For those still looking for facts instead of nonsensical proclamations...

David, that was a very good find.   This should help answer the questions you posed.   Sumner's place overlooked the property Crump purchased from across the railroad to the northeast.   It should also help us to determine the very wide field of view of the camera.

Mike would you identify the exact location of Sumner's house

Your record with respect to photo intrepretation isn't the best, starting with the bridge over the Shinnecock Canal

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Do you think in the intervening 100 years since this photo was taken, someone in the club might have planted trees along the tracks to aid in the sense of seclusion and privacy?  

Mike,

I think the 1917 photo you posted tells us what PV looked like BEFORE any clearing was done.
Just look at the dense forest to the NORTH side of the tracks.
That's what existed to the SOUTH side of the tracks before that land was cleared.

Something tall, like Scotch pines, or any of the other type of stately trees Crump and others planted over the years perhaps?
The trees NORTH of the tracks are a good 40 feet high and form an inpenetrable barrier.

Also, didn't Tillinghast say that Crump spotted the land in the winter?   I'll go down in another few months once the leaves are off the trees and the underbrush dies away and see what there is to see.

Be my guest, but, remember the winter aerial Bryan posted.
You could see the pines paralleling the RR tracks, forming an impenetrable barrier

Why didn't you comment on the grossly erroneous statement you made that the RR tracks were elevated above the course by 15-18 feet from the 18th green to the 14th green ?

Did you see the view from RR tracks north of the mid-point of the 17th fairway ?
Did you see the enormous ridge that forms the right flank of the 17th hole, blocking any and every view of the golf course

Is it because you were so wildly wrong that it's embarrassing ?

And, if you were so wrong in your description of the tracks between # 18 green and # 14 green, and you're familiar with the property, how are you to be trusted with anything you relate to us about Pine Valley ?

Just saw your question...the land of the 6th fairway was cleared but not the land in the right of the picture.   As seen in the stick routing topo Crump's property ended up in that corner.

Just because property lines end, doesn't mean that a course won't prepare the land on adjacent property that doesn't belong to them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here in this enhanced view of a section of Crump's stick routing, one can see in the top center the likely location of the photo, right in the northest corner of the property, almost shooting straight down the length of the 4th, as well as down the length of the ravine that crosses in front of the 18th green, which is why one can see the entrance road as a white horizontal line on the Brown photo (with the elevated bed of the railroad tracks right behind the road).   Ironically, it seems our photo was taken almost from the same orientation as the following 1931 aerial, aimed almost directly at Sumner Station.

Mike, East Atlantic Ave is beyond the RR tracks and below the RR tracks, making it invisible
In addition, the white road/path goes from low right  to high left, so it can't be the entrance road.

Take another guess, it's what you're best at..... wild unsubstantiated, agenda driven speculation.

[DMoriarty]

Cirba,  

You don't have permission to use my photos.  Delete them.   Aren't you one of those always going on about how using anything from the clubs without their permission is reprehensible?   Well explain to me how it is any less reprehensible for you to use my photos without my permission?  Your standard is duplicitous and you are truly a scumbag.
______________________________________________________

For those who wonder why I don't want Cirba using my stuff, look no further than his posts 1533 and 1534 above.  The "analysis" and conclusions are so misleading, stretched, flawed, and ridiculous, that I am again left wondering whether he is entirely incompetent or entirely disingenuous.  I guess it doesn't matter.  

What does matter is the lengths to which Cirba will go to try and mislead people.  

1.  He starts by pretending that we are looking at two homes across the railroad tracks.  While the one on the left might be a home, the other doesn't look anything like a home.  But Mike will just pretend it is a home, because there is a home now about where he wishes the white sandy area was located.

2.  Then in an incredible leap of logic, he claims that one of the homes was Sumner's.  Really?   It was Sumner's?  I have no idea whether it was Sumner's or not, but Mike stating it so certainly doesn't make it so.  Surely his mentor speculated that it was Sumner's and Cirba took that as fact, most likely proving again that two wrongs don't make a right.  One might wonder how a building at about 140 feet could "overlook" a site with with many elevations at least as high, but I'll leave that to Cirba and his mentor.  It really doesn't matter anyway.

So far, no big deal.  Nothing all that damning, except that he is just pretending it is Sumner's home and pretending to see a second home when there is none.  Pretty tame as Cirba's misrepresentations and mistakes go. But then he is just getting started!  

3. Cirba takes a 2010 aerial from Google Earth, and miraculously PRETENDS to identify the two houses. Or should I say he pretends to identify Sumner's 100 year old house and the sandy embankment Mike just pretended was a house?  Really?   Who knows how his mind works, but I presume he picked these two houses on the modern aerial because they have sand around him, and he thinks they are about whether they ought to be to suit his purposes.  Did he assume that if they appeared white in a black and white photo 100 years ago, then they probably still had sand yards?  I guess it did not occur to him that oftentimes the lack of vegetation around a home indicates NEW construction.   As I said, who knows how his mind works?

But what gets me is how he just pretends that these must be the right houses, as if it were so were obvious so as to not even merit discussion.  Does he have any idea that these are the same houses . . . errr . . . house?     Of course not!   But it suits his purposes to PRETEND that they are so he just PRETENDS it is the case.   Of course if I call him a dishonest people will scold me, but is this really an honest way to present information on his part?   He is just PRETENDING "facts" into existence, for goodness sake!  What is the difference between that and lying?  Does his incompetence really excuse all these misrepresentations?  

4. But Cirba is not finished.  He has given us the aerial view showing the two spots he is pretending are houses and visible on old photo.   He has also marked point from which he is pretending to view these objects --from between the dogleg on the green on the 6th fairway.  Yet he then provides a picture from a different angle and elevation . . .

5.  Mike is just PRETENDING his last pic represents what we would see from the 6th fairway or even the sixth green.  In fact, Mike's last pic is taken from 200 ft. elevation, somewhere south of the back tee on the 7th hole.   While Mike PRETENDS it represents what me might see from ground level, the point of view of the camera is hovering over 30 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL.   Why?   Because from ground level Mike's pathetic proof falls apart.  One of his "houses" isn't even visible!    So he has got to artificially elevate the angle to even see what he claims was in the photo.  Again he is essentially making shit up.  PRETENDING things are visible when they are not.    

6.  The funniest thing about Mike's ridiculous attempt to prove his point is that his PRETEND house marked on the aerial is not even near the point he PRETENDS to see it on the PRETEND view from over 30 feet above somewhere south of the 7th tee. He was so eager to try and make his point, that he just picked out light spots on the hillside PRETENDED they were the same points!

So he pretended to see a house where there is none on the old pic, then pretended he could actually identify the exact same house on the new aerial, then pretended he could see the same house from the 6th fairway when he was really looking from 200 ft. elevation somewhere south of the 7th tee, and at an entirely different point on across the tracks.  

In short, Mike's analysis and conclusions fail on just about every level.  His facts, analysis, methodology, and execution are all PRETEND.

That is why I don't want him using my photos.  He is either incapable or unwilling to use them honestly and productively.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

In addition to the 1927 articles, newspaper and American Golfer, and Shelly's account, what other sources indicate that GAC was familiar with the land prior to 1912 ?

If Tom looks in it would be good if he could provide further insight.  Who is Thomas Uzzell, and who might his source have been?  As a side question to you, if Crump or father didn't own the property, what were the implications of Crump hunting game on private property?  Is that something that was commonly done in the early 20th century in NJ.

Uzzell wrote an article in American Golfer in 1927.  Not sure if the two articles from this time period are derivative, and I haven't checked.  From the article:

Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to this country who was a great huntsman and who purchased the present property near the village of Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve. The son, inheriting the property, became interested in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness of the land for a golf course devoted himself wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout money, devotion, and human ingenuity could devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home at Merchantsville near Philadelphia.

As for your other questions, Crump's father (or crump) could have owned a "profit" (profit-a-prendre) to hunt the land (the right to enter the land and take wild game from the land.)   Like mineral rights, only for game.  Such property interests existed well before 1910, even in New Jersey.  If the land owner had sold a profit in the land, it ought to have been recorded.  Another reason for someone to go check out the deeds.  

As for the dwarfs and scrubs, while you may see it as a joke, Mike unfortunately doesn't.  He has been exaggerating the issue incessantly, and not in jest.  If you won't call him out for his antics, could you please at least try to refrain from providing him with further fodder?  

[Kyle Harris]

David:

Mike is using your photos under fair use as per the hosting site used to supply the photos. Surely a lawyer would understand that basic tenet of copyright, fair-use and internet law.

If you do not wish them used, remove them from a public flickr feed.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Please calm yourself...you're going to stroke out before this thread is over at the rate you're going.  

Shelly tells us that Ireland's home overlooked the golf course from land across the railroad tracks to the northeast.   If you think that the home was at 140 feet you have no ability to read a topographical map and should recuse yourself.

And believe me...I DO understand your anger and frustration that after all that time, energy, and effort spent to try and prove me wrong you only actually proved exactly where the camera was...pointing to the east down the length of the 4th hole, directly at the railroad tracks and Sumner Station, with the Sumner home looking on from above which I've stated all along.   Even you couldn't miss that ironic turn of events.

But, I'm sure you'll try to recover and stretch over backwards in a lame attempt to find somewhere else on the property this could have been taken from.  

So rather than just posting another meaningless insult-athon and once again wholly misrepresent my interpretation, why don't you actually go to bat here instead of throwing sewage from the sidelines.   If that isn't the direction of the camera, PLEASE look around in every direction of the property and YOU tell us where it was.

Hint...it wasn't taken from the water tower.

Now take two valium and spend the next two days on Google Earth and don't post again until you have an answer instead of an insult.

Patrick,

That isn't the right question for Tom MacWood.   The right question is...what is the FIRST account that stated Crump found the land while hunting, and what was the relation of the author of that story to George Crump.

[Mike Cirba]

Kyle,

That David is trying to claim intellectual property over two photos that were probably taken by Tillinghast in 1913, likely part of the club's archives since Crump's estate went to the club after his death, and reproduced in the Brown and Shelly books shows simply the depths of his personal vendetta that he brings to this site nearly every day.   First it was Wayne, then Tom Paul, then anyone who agreed with anything they said including Phil Young, Jeff Brauer, and several others, and now because I'm too nice to just tell him to F-off like the architect of his favorite course told me I should do,  one by one this site is depleted.

However, I find these historical threads interesting and intriguing and I've always hated bullies and am not going to be intimidated by him.

Truth be told,  I feel sorry for him and hope he finds some other outlet for his creative energies that will bring some personal satisfaction and happiness.

All,

Here is Thing One, and Here is Thing Two.   These are the two background objects in the photo from above.

[Mike Cirba]

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

Hangars have been built already and flying fields have been provided for.

David keeps talking about my supposed "mentor", but the sad truth is that Tom isn't really interested in helping any of the rest of us here on GCA find out the truth about these matters.   So, we're left to try and figure this stuff out for ourselves, without any of the insight he provided here or the inside knowledge and/or resources of the clubs involved.

As Sir Bob might say, more's the pity.






Here's from the airfield looking back to the golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Gee what a surprise.  Another post by Cirba where almost everything in it is inaccurate and misleading.

Cirba wrote that I am claiming "intellectual property over" the 1913 photograph.  Whatever he thinks he means by "intellectual property over," this is absurd.  I didn't create the 1913 photo and never claimed it was my property, intellectual or otherwise. I've explained this repeatedly to Cirba, but we all know by now that subtleties are not his strength. [Cirba also babbles on about Crump's Estate and Pine Valley's Archives. Apparently he thinks he is not only a expert in property law and intellectual property law, but also trusts, wills, and inheritance matters. I am not here to waste my time explaining these things to him, except to say that his post is gibberish.]
 
I took the photo in question last week, after having set it up lighting, angle, stability, resolution, lens, settings, and after composing the photo to substantially increase usefulness.  I took a number of photos and carefully edited them until I got it the result I wanted, and posted in online.  While a copy of the circa 1913 photo was depicted in my photo (along with a couple of other objects,) I would never have photographed and posted it had I not had a reasonable belief that I was well within my rights to do so. 

Since I created, edited, and posted a useful image depicting a subject matter I am within my rights to depict (and containing a number of my creative derivations, editing, and additions) I have control over how and when my image is reproduced.  Mike doesn't have permission to copy or reproduce my image here or anywhere else.  He needs to delete his unauthorized copies of my image and quit copying my stuff.   If he wants to use the underlying image, he should get himself a copy.   As I said before I probably would have given him a clean copy had he asked, one without my changes and editing, but that was before he started being such an A-hole about this stuff.
______________________________________________

Kyle,

I am quite comfortable with my understanding of the topics you mentioned. Perhaps you should look into them a bit yourself prior to lecturing me here.  And your suggested cure will not work, because Mike downloaded my image then reposted it on a different host server as if it were his own.  As for "fair use" I disagree for a number of reasons, but I'll not get into them here.  If you'd like to discuss it, I suggest you contact me outside this forum.

There is no need and no excuse for him to steal my stuff and then repost it.  He can view and study the images to his heart's content without copying my stuff.   Mine was a simple request and he is scum for disregarding my rights and stealing my stuff.