[DMoriarty]

As usual, when it becomes obvious to even Cirba that he is wrong, he tries to change the subject.

Jim,  about where in the photo would you place the second green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Why aren't the tracks BRIGHT WHITE, like the white road/path in the photo from # 6 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

My two cents is that the picture in question must have been taken by the sixth green, regardless of what Patrick thinks and wants to prove.  We are obviously looking down the length of the clearing on 4 (and maybe 2-3) not across it.  However, I agree with Patrick that the white line in the upper right isn't the railroad tracks, but yet another construction haul road that may or may not still exist in some form as a road across the first fw.


Jeff,

I disagree with you for several reasons.

First, these men, JAB and Shelly, were familiar with the English language.

They knew the difference, when describing a view of the 4th hole/fairway, between describing the view as being DOWN the 4th fairway, with the 2nd green to the left, flanking the 4th hole, and "ACROSS the 4th to the 2nd green.  They knew the difference between "facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee" versus looking DOWN the 4th hole with the 3rd tee and 2nd green to the left.

When Shelly describes the view, it's across the 4th TO the 2nd green.  He lasers in on the 2nd green, and traverses the 4th hole.  He doesn't look down the 4th hole and state that the 2nd green is to the left of the intended fairway.

The second reason is the visual, the optics.

If you stand next to the 6th green and look down the 4th fairway, the crater like crescent rim would be in view on the right side.
It's a huge rim, extending and ending at the 6th tee.  With that camera angle, it would come into view

Thirdly, if you stood at the 6th green, looking down the 4th fairway, down below, in the ravine, you'd see the stream.
No stream is visible.


But, as usual, some would argue I should believe them, and not my own eyes!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think the picture could be from too close to the because you would be looking headlong down the ravine...which we clearly are not. I think it's from near the corner of the dogleg (purely doe to the angle of the ravine)...which just so happens to be the high point of this immediate area for what that's worth...

Jim, I indicated that position at the very begining, although, I think it may be a little more toward the 6th tee.
Bryan's middle line seemed reasonable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Good news.

Someone has contacted me and indicated that they have the stick routing topo and that they will forward the info to me.

They confirmed that the first 4 holes are as they are now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

They sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.  

John Arthur Brown was clear when he stated, "Before-construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the NOW 4TH FAIRWAY, 2ND GREEN AND 3RD TEE"

I've quoted this for you several times, what about the word "FAIRWAY" don't you understand.

In your quote above you say that Shelley uses the word "fairway" too.  Can you admit that you were erroneous on that?  Of course, with you unable to post the JAB photo, we don't know that your quote of that is accurate or not.  This is getting kind of TePpy.  

I quoted them each, so many times, that I added "fairway" to Shelly's quote.

In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee, which would be your MIDDLE line.   The right side slope is consistent with that location.  From that point, it's impossible to see the RR tracks as Mike claims.

What the heck is a "linear world"?  Where does JAB say you're supposed to line up the 4 objects?  I put the camera near the 6th tee to humor you.  Do you want to put it on the 6th tee?  The forward, or the back one?  

On either, why wouldn't JAB have captioned it as looking over the 5th green as well, because from the 6th tee it's directly in line with the 4th fairway and 2nd green and 3rd tee?

Because, grasshopper, there was NO 5th green at that site at that time.  The 5th hole was routed elsewhere.
It wasn't until Colt arrived that the 5th hole was sited in its present location.

When looking at a scene, your eye can take in a fairly broad field of view.  What makes you so sure that JAB wasn't describing what he could see in the field of view?  Where is the smoking gun that they were exactly aligned?

When a guy says facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee, can there be any doubt what he was focused on ?
If I say, look at that house across the street, are you going to tell me that I meant you should look elsewhere ?

If a guy said that, I'd think he meant that those objects were somewhere in the field of view of the photo, not that they were lined up like sitting ducks.

So, if I said, look across the road at those two houses next to each other, you'd look elsewhere ?
Give me a break.  You'd look at those two houses,  to the exclusion of other features, especially distant features

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?  not necessarily tree trunks, just general debris

B is a ravine?  Gully/Ravine

C are trees in the ravine?  Agreed

The right side of this photo looks like the bank leading to the 6th tee.

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Generally

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?Agreed



In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  

I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter.

The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.

John Arthur Brown DIDN'T say the 6th fairway.
He said, "The HIGH RIDGE of the 6th HOLE.
That could be the tee on # 6.
Or, the area between the tee and the fairway,
Or, the start of the fairway.

The tee is at 150 feet.  The fairway ridge is at 164 feet.  Seems unlikely he was referring to the tee.

The ridge extends back to the 6th tee and beyond

It does?  The tee looks to be a bit lower than the fairway and there is that dip in front of the tee.  I guess you wouldn't want to put your camera down there if it was on the high ridge.

If you'd turn your camera around, you'd see a house behind the tee and slightly above you.
The ridge extends back, beyond the tee.

You're being fooled by the path that dips down in front of the tee, but, the land to the left of that tee rises up and is a continuation of the high ridge.

You're lack of familiarity with the property is causing you to make erroneous assumptions and flawed conclusions.



Can we agree that "across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

No, I don't agree, JAB stated, "facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."   Why ignore his detailed description ?

I think the vantage point is closer to your middle line.

OK, I'll humor you on this point.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer?  

Land at 47 M, 48 M, 49 M, 50 M.

It looks like the short course to me.  

That's much further in the distance and to the LEFT of the line.

How do you figure that.  See the new picture below with your preferred centre line.  It passes across the short course.  In the 45* field of view the 206 foot hill on the short course would be in the left side of the picture.  The right side of the 45* field of view is down around 100 feet.  Where is that slope down from 200 feet to 100 feet across the field of vision of the picture?

That's because you placed the camera between the fairway and the tee and drew your line to the left of the green.
If the camera location is at the begining of the fairway and goes through the 2nd green, the short course isn't behind it.



Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course.  

The short course isn't on the line of sight between # 6, # 4 fairway, #2 green and # 3 tee.,  Yes, it is.  See picture above.  I know you have eye issues.  Do they include tunnel vision?  


Move your camera location to the start of the 6th fairway and through the 2nd green, which is what Shelly stated, and where does that put your line ?

It rotates the centre line a little to the right.  Closer to where I thought it should be.  The change is marginal and the short course is still within the field of view defined by the right and left lines.  Stop being silly.

I'm not being silly, I'm being precise.
You can't see any part of the short course from the 6th fairway, crown of the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee.
It is well below those points and with the fairway on # 6 and the tee on # 3 being at 47 M, you're not going to see anything under that horizon.

But, the elevation next to the tee on the short course that comes closest to that line is 31 M, descending to 25 M at the RR tracks.

To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture.  

Then why are the trees to the right of the cleared area at a consistent height ?  
Because they are across the RR track and the field of view is to the right of where you want it to be.

Nonsense, they're on this side of the railroad tracks.
Just look at your distances.  The RR tracks are 400 yards further back, those trees are up close and personal

The horizon is flat.  
Why wouldn't a horizon, 5, 10 or 20 miles in the distance be flat.

What makes you think the horizon is 5 or more miles distant.  

Because I was there last week and looked at it.
And, I'll trust my eyes, with corrective lenses, more than your guesses and estimates.
Do you know you could see the bridge spanning the Delaware from the 18th tee ?

 No I didn't.  Which bridge would that be?  How tall is it?
What's that, 15 miles ?  About 11 miles.

And, the 18th tee is about 41 Meters, the 6th fairway 47 Meters.


The short course is only a half mile from the 6th fairway and you wouldn't be able to see over the 206 foot high hill.  Using your preferred centre line, downtown Clementon is only 1.5 miles away.  I guess there are no church spires that would have stood out on the horizon.

That is more consistent with my preferred line.

No, it's not.

But, if I accepted your middle line, there's no way in the world that the RR tracks would be visible.

Perhaps you're confusing them with the road that runs through the first fairway or the road that runs parallel to the 2nd fairway.

You're confused.  The middle line in the picture below is your line, not mine.  Mine is the leftline - up on the 6th fairway ridge.

I didn't think there were any roads there then.  After all, it was a dense jungle that was just being cleared.

Then what's that white road doing running down the middle of the picture ?
How quickly you forget.




And, if the left line is yours and you stated that the camera angle was 45 degrees, the maximum view to the right of your line would be 22.5 degrees, and at 22.5 degrees, the RR tracks are blocked by the crown at the top of the 4th fairway and the high ground to the right of the 4th fairway.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Would you do us all a favor by going into Google Earth and click on Tools  -->  Options  -->  3D View  -->  Show Elevation  and change yours to Miles,Feet so that we can talk in the same elevation units.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

OK, we seem to have three options for the camera location.  I've labeled them A, B and C in the picture.  They all pander to Patrick's assertion that the 2nd tee and 3rd green are in the dead centre of the picture. 

I've also included some elevations.  I think these are accurate, or both Google Earth and the USGS are out to lunch in measuring elevations.

Patrick, 

Notice the top left corner.  On the short course there is a hill with a maximum elevation of 200 feet.  It is in the left side of the field of vision from your preferred camera location C.  There is nothing between the camera location and the 200 foot hill that would block it out.  Where in the picture, on the horizon, do you see that hill?  How far away from the camera are the trees across the clearing?  Why would the road in the left of the picture be routed across the 4th waste area and left of the second green and go up towards the short course?

Mike,

The field of view from camera position A near the green does not come anywhere near the 18th fairway.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Patrick has to be laughing here.

There is no way in hell that the 2nd green is in the middle of that photo and Patrick KNOWS that.

We know because in the slightly left truncated version that appears in the Shelly book, the 3rd tee is not visible, indicating that the 2nd green is in the top left of the photo, left of the 4th fairway, which itself is in the left half of the picture.

I'm inclined to agreen with Jim with camera position B, roughly, but if you adjust your field of vision so that the left edge is between the 2nd green and 3rd tee you'll have a pretty good indication of what's in the photograph.

Pat is trying to confuse you, and others who haven't been there with his sixth tee nonsense, and pointing towards the short course.   Trust your instincts, young Skywalker.  

Pat started off this thread telling us that he had just come into possession of a book with pictures that prove PV was an inpenetrable jungle where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face, such that the train story had to be a myth.

Where are they?

Now that we can see the tracks, or a road, or whatever it is across hundreds of yards of the property, Pat wants to confuse the issue.

[Mike Cirba]

Almost forgot about these towering scrub tees....



Bryan,

Here is a VERY conservative rendering, marked option D...I think it's conservative in terms of left position of the camera and field of vision to the right, but it's about 98.9% more accurate than Pat's 6th tee theory.   See what Jim Sullivan thinks, who has been there about 98.9% more times than Patrick.   

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Again, why in the world would any newspaper report that Crump played "ballsomes" with his friends in Atlantic City during the winter of 1909/10?

I'll ask you again if you found a single report of Crump playing golf in 1910 prior to his trip abroad, anywhere, in any event, big, small, informal? Prominent golfers trip to local resorts were reported all the time...you know that, and I know that, so why do act as if it were unusual? This another example of why you no credibility.


And, once again, we're provided with no quotes or context from the supposed numerous hunting accounts.   Could it be that Crump mentioned it to Tililnghast and Tillinghast alone?   Why in heaven's name would Tillinghast make it up?   Was riding a train somehow more adventurous and romantic than ruggedly hunting game back in Teddy Roosevelt's day?   Your (and Patrick's) whole case here is absurd and would be thrown out of any court in the land.

You have all the reports and most of them are quoted on this thread so why do you plead ignorance? This another example of why you have no credibility. Logic and common sense should tell you if you have a half dozen or more reports saying the land was found hunting and one report that he found it on train on golfing trip in AC that the formed report is much more likely. Add to it that he was not making any golfing trip in 1910 and any objective person would conclude the story is bogus.

Why would he make it up? I don't know...there could be a dozen reasons. Why did he claim to be the dean of American Golf Architects? Why did he report that Tilly died of a tooth ache?

Finally, what do you base you assessment of Raynor vs White's architectural styles on?   I've played 12 Robert White courses and an equal dozen of Raynor's. How many of each have you actually seen to make some type of valid comparison of their styles?

No need for you to exaggerate, but lets just say I've seen enough of all of their styles to conclude the course is nontypical. The bottom line is you misrepresented and distorted what I said about NS, and you misrepresented what the final outcome of that debate was....that it was collaboration of Raynor, CBM and White.

You have a tendency to exaggerate and distort...why is that?

[Mike Cirba]

No exaggeration, Tom...why don't you name all the Robert White courses you've actually seen and I'll do the same?   Raynor as well.

Be happy to compare personal experiences with you.

As far as credibility here, please don't make me laugh.

Everyone here knows you have some bug up your rear about Philadelphia and your latest transparent attempt to discredit Tillinghast is typical of your tactics.

I rest comfortable knowing that your theories hold no water with anyone but a few argumentative sorts here, and I don't even think they believe you...they simply like to antagonize those disagreeing with you.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim Sullivan,

If you would, take another gander at this photo.

If that dirt road is the middle of the 4th fairway, where would you say the 4th green would be?   

And if I think we're close there, where would you say the clubhouse would be?

And from there where would the 18th green be?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Almost forgot about these towering scrub tees....

You shouldn't forget about them, and, if you'll notice, they form an inpenetrable barrier.
You can't see a thing through them.



Bryan,

Here is a VERY conservative rendering, marked option D...I think it's conservative in terms of left position of the camera and field of vision to the right, but it's about 98.9% more accurate than Pat's 6th tee theory. 

Mike, you're not even close, you have the 2nd green at the extreme left edge of your line, so much so that you've excluded the 3rd tee, which JAB identified as an object in the photo.  The centerline and right of the centerline of your purple lines doesn't include the 4th hole, rather the woods to the right.  It's a dishonest presentation.  

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

You've already told us that the photo was truncated on the left side in the Shelly version of the photo, which is obviously why he didn't mention the 3rd tee...it was cut out of the photo that appeared in Brown's book.

That would place the 2nd green in the far left side of the photo in Shelly's book represented here.

You are the one being dishonest and playing games with the photos.   The picture here is from the Shelly book, with the 3rd tee cut off on the left from what is in Brown's book.   That is why Shelly doesn't mention the 3rd tee in his caption.

As far as the inpenetrable mess of brush and scrub you see there, you can see right over them to the ridge of the 6th fairway beyond!    

Also, in the summer, that stuff grows thick.   In the winter, it would be denuded.


Jim,

Here's the photo again, at full size (please use the scroll bar below to move to the right).   If you would, do the mental exercise of following the 4th hole in your mind's eye up over the crest of fairway and down to the green below and tell me where you end up.

Where would that place the clubhouse and 18th green?

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Patrick has to be laughing here.

There is no way in hell that the 2nd green is in the middle of that photo and Patrick KNOWS that.

Of course it is, Shelly and JAB both indicated same, except that JAB included the 3d tee as a reference point.

We know because in the slightly left truncated version that appears in the Shelly book, the 3rd tee is not visible, indicating that the 2nd green is in the top left of the photo, left of the 4th fairway, which itself is in the left half of the picture.

Mike, you're being dishonest again.
You don't have a clue as to the location of the 3rd tee in either photo.
To allege, as you have, that the 3rd tee is not visible in the Shelly photo is disengenuous.

I'm inclined to agreen with Jim with camera position B, roughly, but if you adjust your field of vision so that the left edge is between the 2nd green and 3rd tee you'll have a pretty good indication of what's in the photograph.

Why would Shelly describe the photo as being across the 4th TO the 2nd green if the 2nd green was in the extreme left edge of the photo ?
He wouldn't.  He'd say, here's the 4th fairway, the 2nd green is on the far left.  But, he didn't say that, only you in your agenda driven interpretation offer that absurd view.

Pat is trying to confuse you, and others who haven't been there with his sixth tee nonsense, and pointing towards the short course.  
Trust your instincts, young Skywalker.  

I'm not trying to confuse anyone and as you'll see below, when it comes to telling the truth, I think Luke will trust me.

Pat started off this thread telling us that he had just come into possession of a book with pictures that prove PV was an inpenetrable jungle where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face, such that the train story had to be a myth.

Where are they?

They're right in front of your eyes.
Your problem is that your looking at the CLEARED areas and trying to tell everyone that that's how the land looked BEFORE it was cleared.
That's dishonest.  That's being deliberately dishonest.  And you know it.  

As to the size of those trees, you don't have a clue as to their height, so stop misrepresenting that you do.

Now that we can see the tracks, or a road, or whatever it is across hundreds of yards of the property, Pat wants to confuse the issue.

Mike, I have to tell you again, that I really resent your dishonesty.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the conditions.

You're using photos of the land, AFTER it had been cleared and offering them as evidence of what the land looked like and what you could see BEFORE it had been cleared.
You can't get more dishonest than that.

The ONLY reason you can see anything is that the land had been cleared.

The photo you posted above shows how dense and inpenetrable the forest and underbush were.

Simon Carr and AWT told you how dense and inpenetrable the forest was, Carr said it was Jungle like, but you, in a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent, offer photos of cleared land as being representative of what the land looked like BEFORE it was cleared.

When will you cease being intellectually dishonest ?

At what point will you eliminate your agenda driven bias and be objective ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

These are the same two photos that YOU told us proved that Tillinghast couldn't have possibly seen anything from the train....the same train that is raised about 15 feet from the 18th through the rest of the course to the south, with a seated vantage point over 20 feet in the air along that stretch.

Why don't you have someone scan the photo in the Brown book into a .pdf file and email it to me...I'll be happy to post it for comparison.

I'm NOT representing that the areas for the fairway haven't been cleared, but these were the photos you said proved your case.

They do nothing but prove the opposite.

Riding along that train you almost couldn't have missed the wild configuration of sandy land with over 100 feet of elevation change in otherwise dead-flat south Jersey.

And, from LOTS of experience tromping around in the woods on golf course archeological tours, I KNOW the VAST difference in what you can see and navigate between the winter and the summer in the woods around here.

Remember, Perrin first was brought to the land in the summer.   Tillinghast said it was found in the winter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You've already told us that the photo was truncated on the left side in the Shelly version of the photo, which is obviously why he didn't mention the 3rd tee...it was cut out of the photo that appeared in Brown's book.


On Shelly's picture, I stated that the top and bottom were truncated, cutting off some of the sky and foreground.
The left and right margins are almost identical.  Yet, with only a slight margin change, you want to move the focus of the photo far to the right.

What you're not telling people is how close the 2nd green and 3rd tee are, from that view, that perspective, that line, yet you want to take the 2nd green and shift it far, far to the left, and that's dishonest, disengenuous for Jeff's sake.

Bryan's red line (B) places the 2nd green properly, in the center of the photo.

The fact is, you don't know where the 3rd tee is in either photo.  So stop claiming that it's not in Shelly's photo.

And now we learn that you've NEVER seen Brown's photo, so how do you pretend to claim that you know what it represents.

That would place the 2nd green in the far left side of the photo in Shelly's book represented here.

NO, it wouldn't.  Shelly stated, "looking across the 4th TO the 2nd green."  He focused on the 2nd green, not anything and everything to the right of it as you would misrepresent by placing the 2nd green at the left edge of the photo..

You are the one being dishonest and playing games with the photos.  
The picture here is from the Shelly book, with the 3rd tee cut off on the left from what is in Brown's book.

You've NEVER seen Brown's photo so how can you make that claim ?
You don't even know where the 3rd tee or 2nd green are, so how can you claim that they're cut off.  

That is why Shelly doesn't mention the 3rd tee in his caption.

1.   No it's not, You don't know why Brown's and Shelly's captions are different, so don't pretend that you do.
2.  The two features are close to one another when viewed from the 6th hole, yet, you would shift the focus of the photo 50 to 100 yards to the
     right to further your agenda.

As far as the inpenetrable mess of brush and scrub you see there, you can see right over them to the ridge of the 6th fairway beyond!    
Mike, the 6th fairway is INVISIBLE from behind the 3rd green, the 6th fairway is so far above the the 3rd green that it's impossible to see it.

Also, in the summer, that stuff grows thick.   In the winter, it would be denuded.

Those photo were taken in the winter.

Jim,

Here's the photo again, at full size (please use the scroll bar below to move to the right).   If you would, do the mental exercise of following the 4th hole in your mind's eye up over the crest of fairway and down to the green below and tell me where you end up.

Mike, why don't you show us, with yellow markings, exactly where the 2nd green, 3rd tee and 4th fairway are in the photo.
That way we can pinpoint your position and you won't be able to deviate from and change it to suit another theory in the future.

Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Stop playing games.

If the 2nd green was in the middle of the photo, then where would the 4th fairway be...down the cliff into the water that one drives over on the 5th?

Shelly tells us the photo was taken from the present 6th fairway not the tee.   So does Brown.

I'll try to draw their positions as I see the photo later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

These are the same two photos that YOU told us proved that Tillinghast couldn't have possibly seen anything from the train....the same train that is raised about 15 feet from the 18th through the rest of the course to the south, with a seated vantage point over 20 feet in the air along that stretch.

Sadly, you're incapable of telling the truth.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the 17th tee is slightly higher than the tracks, but, as you walk up the 17th fairway, with the ascending land, the tracks are BELOW you, not above you as you deliberately misrepresent.  The tracks continue to be WELL below the land all the way to # 17 green and beyond.

20 feet above the tracks ?
Was AWT seated on top of the train, in an elevated viewing platform.
When will you stop exagerating ?  When will you begin telling the truth.

And, the beauty is, if you look at the 1917 photo from the 18th tee, you can see, north of the tracks, how dense, tall and inpenetrable that forest was.

If the embankment was 18 feet high as you claim, then those trees north of the embankment must be 40, 50 or 60 feet tall as they tower over the tracks, which you claim are 18 feet above the surrounding land.

If one looks at that same photo, toward the left of the 18th green bunkers, you can see an area of trees that wasn't cleared.
They are tall and thick, just like their brethren to the north of the tracks.

Simon Carr and Tillinghast both described the land as dense forest with jungle like undergrowth so thick that it hid the land from the view of mortal eyes for a full two years and three winters.

Why don't you have someone scan the photo in the Brown book into a .pdf file and email it to me...I'll be happy to post it for comparison.

ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE BROWN PHOTO ?
That you've made all of these wild claims without ever having viewed it ?

How dishonest and disengenuous can you get ?

I'm NOT representing that the areas for the fairway haven't been cleared, but these were the photos you said proved your case.

Of course you are.
You claimed that because you could see the roads and features in the photos of the cleared land, GAC and AWT could see everything as well.
You totally and absolutely represented that the photos of the cleared land were evidence that GAC and AWT could see the same thing prior to the clearing of the land.

They do prove my case, and, I ONLY offered one photo in my reply # 1101, the photo on page 13 of Shelly's book that shows the inpenetrable forest beyond the cleared area.  Again, you're misrepresenting what I offered as an exhibit.

YOU were the one who offered the second photo in your reply # 1102.
Please, start telling the truth.  I never offered the second photo, of cleared land, from a high elevation, as proof of the density of the forest and underbrush.

Here's the photo again..  Tell me what you can see beyond the initital tree line.  
Don't avoid the question, tell us what you can see in the form of land, objects, anything.



They do nothing but prove the opposite.

Riding along that train you almost couldn't have missed the wild configuration of sandy land with over 100 feet of elevation change in otherwise dead-flat south Jersey.

Let's see, Tillinghast claimed that the forest and undergrowth were so thick, that for over two (2) years that they had owned, inspected and walked the property that the land was hidden from mortal eyes by those trees and that underbrush, but, a passenger in a speeding train, heading east, could see sandy soil and elevation changes through those trees and underbrush in the 40 seconds that the train took to pass from behind the 2nd tee to behind the 14th green.   Is that you claim..?

And, from LOTS of experience tromping around in the woods on golf course archeological tours, I KNOW the VAST difference in what you can see and navigate between the winter and the summer in the woods around here.

So do I and so did Simon Carr and Tillinghast who were there and described it vividly.
And, the picture confirms same.
The uncleared areas are inpenetrable despite your attempts to claim that open views of the property were the norm.

Remember, Perrin first was brought to the land in the summer.   Tillinghast said it was found in the winter.

So you're saying that for the period of two years, three winters, Tillinghast lied.  That the land was invisible in the summer but visible in the winter ?

Did they cease examining and walking the land in the winter, is that why it remained hidden for three winters ?

Mike, it's a myth,  only you and a few Philly phanatics are the ones that don't get it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Stop playing games.

If the 2nd green was in the middle of the photo, then where would the 4th fairway be...down the cliff into the water that one drives over on the 5th?

Mike, you just don't get it.
Bryan offered this photo when discussing the extension of the ridge on # 6 fairway back to the tee..
I NEVER claimed that this was the angle of the photo, how do you come to that wild conclusion.
Don't you read the posts ?

What I did say is that the landform leading to the 6th tee looks like the landform in the right side of the photo, when the camera is at a point equivalent to the begining of the 6th fairway, which appears in the left side of this photo.

Please try paying attention and please try reading without such an incredibly predisposed bias.

Shelly tells us the photo was taken from the present 6th fairway not the tee.   So does Brown.

Brown does NOT say that.
Why do you make this crap up ?
Have you ever seen or read the Brown book ?

Brown states, and I've quoted him before, "Before-construction view from the HIGH RIDGE of the 6th hole, facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."

Would you show me where Brown states the photo was taken from the 6th fairway ?

Absent your ability to do so, would you admit that you're wrong again.
The photo could have been taken from the tee, which was my point to Bryan, since the tee is part of that high ridge.  
I also advised him that the path dips, but the land slightly left of the path doesn't, forming a continuous crescent ridge.

I'll try to draw their positions as I see the photo later.

No need to, as you're totally confused and disoriented, which calls into question your ability to understand and comment on the land form based on photos..

Could you also tell us how you're able to perform detailed photo analysis of a photo that you've NEVER seen.

How could you make definitive comments about Brown's photo when YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT ?

Would you call that being intellectually dishonest ?  Disengenuous ?  Misrepresenting ?



Just pivot to the right and look TO the 2nd green from across the 4th and tell me if it doesn't resemble the view offered by Brown and Shelly.  Oh, I forgot, you've never seen Brown's picture.  OK,  just Shelly's

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you agree that the ravine in those pictures is running from short left (maybe 7 o'clock) to long right (maybe 1 o'clock)? If not, how would you describe it's orientation?



David,

I would put the second green very close to the letter D in Bryan doctored image. Not the arrow from the D, but on or just above/right (less than an inch away) from the D itself.


Mike,

I think your Purple Camera angle is likely the closest. All this just based on the angle looking over the ravine and the distance various features are from the ridge. Regarding the 4th green/clubhouse/18th green sites. On that same lettered image Bryan produced I would guess the 4th green is below the right hand arrow marker E (maybe 2 inches below the tip of the arrow and an inch or so to the right) with the clubhouse a few inches right of that and the 18th green another couple inches right of that, possibly grabbing the edge of the screen.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Thanks for your perspective.  

Patrick,

You do realize that if the photo was taken from the 6th tee in the orientation you describe, with the 2nd green in the middle of the photo across the 4th fairway, and the 3rd tee behind that, you would have the 5th green in the foreground, an almost sheer ravine wall directly in front of you, yes?

Anyone here can see that simply by looking at Google Maps.

Why does anyone disagreeing with you have to be a liar?

You are simply mistaken here in what you think you are seeing.   Jim Sullivan and others more familiar with the property have tried to tell you that time and again.   You seem to have already made up your mind too early, made some careless statements about the integrity of AW Tillinghast,  and are now struggling to make the facts fit your preconceived notions and public statements.

We can have a disagreement without all the name-calling and other BS, cant we?

Here again is Shelly's caption, telling us the photo was taken from the 6th fairway.   Do you think he was unfamiliar with the property, as he was only a member there for about 50 years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

,

You do realize that if the photo was taken from the 6th tee in the orientation you describe, with the 2nd green in the middle of the photo across the 4th fairway, and the 3rd tee behind that, you would have the 5th green in the foreground, an almost sheer ravine wall directly in front of you, yes?

NO, you wouldn't, the 5th green didn't exist in the early routing.
The shoulder, or descending land form to the right would be the begining area in which the 6th tee and 5th green would later be sited.

I've indicated, time and time again, that I think the photo was taken from an area close to the begining of the 6th fairway, and perhaps closer to the 6th tee.

Anyone here can see that simply by looking at Google Maps.

Shelly says the view is TO the 2nd green from across the 4th hole.
Brown says it's the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee.
If that's not a target beacon to the object or focus of the photo I don't know what is, and that places the camera a location closer to the 6th tee than the 6th green.

Why does anyone disagreeing with you have to be a liar?

Disagreeing doesn't qualify one as a liar, deliberately misrepresenting and knowingly making false statements does

You are simply mistaken here in what you think you are seeing.  

That's your opinion.

Jim Sullivan and others more familiar with the property have tried to tell you that time and again.  

List for me, those that are more familiar with the property who disagree with me.

You seem to have already made up your mind too early, made some careless statements about the integrity of AW Tillinghast,  

I've made no careless statements about AWT, every statement was measured.
And, I stand by my assessment of each situation, the train story and the failure to accurately report the cause of GAC's death.

You're the one calling AWT a liar.
He described, in detail, the hostility of the site, the fact that nature, in the form of dense woods and thick underbrush had hidden the land from the eyes of mortals for over two years (three winters)  yet, you keep claiming the land could be easily distinguished and identified as land ideal for golf from a speeding train that was on the property border for all of 40+ seconds
.
Simon Carr, GAC's closest friend, also described the area as being so hostile that it was "Jungle like", but you want to call him a liar as well, by claiming that visibility wasn't hindered, NOT just for a few feet, but for hundreds and hundreds of yards.

and are now struggling to make the facts fit your preconceived notions and public statements.

Why havent you answered the questions I posed to you about the RR tracks.

I answer ALL of your questions, but, when pointed questions are put to you, questions that undermine and destroy your position, you NEVER answer them.  You avoid responding, even after repeated requests.  Is that being intellectually honest ?

WHY AREN'T THE TRAIN TRACKS BRIGHT WHITE IN THE 1917 PHOTO FROM THE 18TH TEE ?

The white road/path in the photo from # 6 is bright white, and, that's through the trees.

We can have a disagreement without all the name-calling and other BS, cant we?[color=]

Does't that really depend upon the integrity of your/our presentations, your/our intellectual honesty in your/our representations.

You can't make knowingly false statements, wild unsubstantiated statements and expect to be warmly embraced[/color]

Here again is Shelly's caption, telling us the photo was taken from the 6th fairway.   Do you think he was unfamiliar with the property, as he was only a member there for about 50 years?

Yes, I do think he was as unfamiliar with the uncleared property and partially cleared property as anyone else.

I'll bet you anything you want to bet, without you consulting others, that both Brown and Shelly relied on the inscription on the back of the photo, or accompanying notations, rather than their own eyes.

Again, please show us, with yellow outlines, the location of the 2nd green, 4th fairway and 3rd tee on the photo below.

By the way, READ Shelly's description AGAIN.

He doesn't say from the 6th fairway, he says, "From the HEIGHT of the 6th fairway"
Could it be on the tee, directly in front of the tee, directly short of the 6th fairway,  to the left of the line between the 6th tee and 6th fairway.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I've mocked up both photos to chronicle my interpretations, per your request.    I can't upload them to the Internet at present, but will do so by tonight.

The road or railroad bed appears white because it's a black and white photo.   The green pine trees appear black...some of the others shades of grey.   What does that tell us?   Not much.

If you go to Google Earth and zoom in on the railroad bed along 18, what color is it?   I'll take a snap of that and upload that tonight as well.

Also, it's 112 yards from the front 6th tee to the very start of the fairway...which is hardly the "height" of the 6th fairway as that is well above the tee and proceeds to higher elevations along the fairway from there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()