1. Cirba claims that the 3rd tee is visible in the photo in the Brown book, but not in the photo in the Shelly book. As of a few days ago, Cirba had never seen the photo in the Brown book, and I assume this is still the case, so I have no idea how he thinks he can make relative comparisons between the two photos when he hasn't even seen one of them. "About 10-15 yards are truncated . . . " Did he just make that up? Presumably, he is contrasting the photos based on the differences in the captions between the two photos and by making the stretched assumption that the Shelly book intentionally cut off the the third tee from few, cropping the photo at exactly the small space between the second green and third tee. While this is possible, I guess, it doesn't seem to likely. Did Shelly even know exactly what he was viewing? I am not so sure, given his comment in the caption: "What a wasteland it seemed to all but George Crump."
2. He continues to claim that there was a tree line adjacent to the third tee, as if this were fact. However, he ignores that the 1920 aerial shows that at least a small section of trees had been cleared immediately adjacent to the third tee, and that in the 1930 Aerial it looks as if a large section adjacent to the third tee had been cleared. And in both the aerials it is impossible to tell how much of the trees near the third tee are new grown, planted since 1913, and what was already there. And if there were trees where Mike thinks they should be, then I doubt the 2nd green would even be visible in the Shelly book --there is quite a bit of land (much more than Mike's "10-15 yards") to the left of where Mike has placed the green. Enough so that if his theory of the treeline is correct, then we ought to see it.
3. He points out what he calls "the one large, bushy tree" and claims that "what looks to be the same tree" is visible in the 1920 aerial. It looks to be the same tree? How so? This seems more wishful thinking than critical analysis. First, it isn't even "one large, bushy tree." It is two trees at least. Second, it looks larger, a different shape, and in a different location than the dark blob in the 1920 Aerial. Third, even assuming the 1920 blob was large enough to be visible in the 1913 Aerial (an assumption I am not willing to make) there are a number of other trees visible in the 1913 photo that could just as easily be that tree. Fourth, look at the distance between the tree in 1913 photo and the ravine and compare it to the distance from the green blob to the ravine in the 1913 photo. The former seems to be much further away from the ravine.
4. He claims what we have been calling a sandy road comes "from the right before rising up the hill." Then, apparently based on this sketchy interpretation, he assumes that the road shown is the current road that wraps around the lake, and assumes it was always there. In the Brown book this sandy line looks like it came from the left, not the right. One can possibly see the ground from all the way to the road, yet there is no road where Mike thinks it goes.
In short, his interpretation and reasoning is tenuous at best. I don't know where the green was located, and Mike's reasoning does nothing to clarify this issue for me.
I have no idea how Jeff Brauer can claim that he thinks Mike got it about right.
Has he seen the photo from the Brown book? Does he know how much land is cut off? Does he agree that it is only 10-15 feet? Does he agree that he can tell the road comes from the right at the bottom of the photo and wraps around the lake. Can he really tell that the supposed "one large, bushy tree" is the same tree as in the 1920 aerial? Can he even make out the other large trees in the 1913 photograph? Does he agree that there was a solid tree line bordering the 3rd tee.
Unless he has information I don't have, then I think Brauer's endorsement of Mike's analysis is just more wishful thinking.