[JESII]

Jeff,

Not sure what to make of your mining paragraph there. The creekbed is from a naturally occurring spring fed creek up by the current 4th tee.

As to the ravine changing directions...how so? It's a pretty straight shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

If you look at the USGS or stick routing topos, you will see that the 6th fw bends right around a curve.  In any case, swales are a natural form with variations, and it is hard to use those as fixed points.  The clearing line, roads, trees, etc. are all better markers.

Not sure if the creek was naturally occurring or created by lowering the topo via mining, but even it is natural, they seemingly took sand out of the banks on either side of the creek, as well as in other low areas.  Again, not unusual for sand to collect there over the eons.  However, it often comes in pockets in random locations.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff/Jim,

I agree this whole line of inquiry about the photo is pretty silly, yet does make a point.

It's gone on this long because Patrick, who happened to have both books and could have ended this a long time ago by coming clean instead continued to insist that one couldn't possibly see the train tracks from that photo because the camera was near the 6th tee, with the second green in the middle of the photo, the third tee behind it, shooting out towards the Short Course, when he almost had to know better.   I find myself hoping he simply made a whopper of a mistake due to his unfamiliarity with the course and terrain.

He told us we were liars, idiots, and a host of other insults simply because he couldn't accept the fact that he started a thread based on what he thought was a novel, if half-baked idea, threw Tillinghast and his historical reputation under the bus, and wouldn't back off his initial premise no matter how much evidence was produced that proved him wrong time and again in his assertions and speculations.

But Jeff is right...if someone is so inclined they should be able to come pretty close to figuring out the location of the photographer using Google Earth.   For me, I'm comfortable that the point has been made, especially now that the Brown photo is finally available for all of us to view, so I'd prefer moving onto other topics.

For instance, I'd like to know the date of the first report that said Crump found the site while hunting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I think TMac could and probably has supplied that, but I could be wrong.  I also agree with him, whatever is right on the legend of finding the site (I think there is some mythology on all sides) it is relatively unimportant.  All we really can conclude is that there are varying reports, despite some strong opinions from all of us as to what source is most credible.  As I said early, I wouldn't push the Tillie story so hard as to accuse a priest of lying!

Back to the trees, its pretty clear to me that the area and site was a mixture of some type of mature and scrub forest, just starting to revegetate from clearing.  We also spent a lot of time debating about land across the street, but I think the photos prove it wasn't all one or the other, which is typical on most sites.

I would like more info on the real estate component, and perhaps the mining.  It obviously plays into the final form of PV.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I agree that I'd like to know more about the real estate transactions and mining.

As far as Father Carr, I cannot for the life of me find where he said Crump found the site hunting.   He certainly doesn't say that in his comprehensive 1915 article.

So, I would like to see the exact quotes, context, and dates of the other accounts that said he found it hunting.

I don't have the date in front of me right now, think it was around 1914, but at some point "Joe Bunker" wrote in a Philly paper;

George A. Crump a few years ago while taking a horseback trip near Clementon, New Jersey, was so impressed with a sandy tract that he invited a number of Philadelphians to go on an exploring trip with him.   They found a tract of virgin forest made up chiefly of scrub oak and pine and then and there decided that it contained a splendid golf course.


Personally, I don't see at all how the stories are mutually exclusive in the least.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,  I see your point.  For that matter, there is nothing in Joe Bunker's story that says he found it first.  We know that eventually Crump took his committee down there, but from other reports, only after he had decided it was where he wanted to build, no?  It seems as likely that this reporter (do we know who it was?) combined a few facts as it does that Tillie, sitting next to Crump on the train did, no?

Why would we take a later account from someone else over Tillies?  Of course, the whole debate is trying to pick one source over another as being the most credible to make your point, no?

In any event, time to move on.  Real history or bust!

[DMoriarty]

Gee what a surprise.  Mike Cirba is absolutely certain that the photo from the Brown book settles everything . . . and exactly in the way he hoped it would.   To Mike, the source material is but a Rorschach image; a means for him to project his predetermined views into the discussion.  His interpretations say more about him than what he is viewing.

That elusive tree line adjacent to the 3rd tee?  Still just out of view.  Amazing.  

_____________________________________________

Mike Cirba, so you know up front, you DO NOT have my permission to copy or repost my photographs of the image in the Brown book.  I didn't spend the time setting them up to get a decent rendering to provide you with more fodder to use to further clog up the thread.   Leave the one up you reposted if you wish, but no more.
______________________________________________

[Jeff_Brauer]

If the tree line by 3 still isn't visible, it further proves the photo was taken by 6 green because if it was taken by the 6th tee, as Patrick suggested, that angle would be looking more right at it, no?

David, instead of telling us all how Mike is wrong, do you want to tell us where you think the photo is taken?  You are free to disagree, but I made my mind up long ago and it just really doesn't seem that hard to figure out, nor is it worth any more time arguing.

Thanks for posting the Brown photo again, and using photoshop to clear it up.  Your version really is a lot easier to see.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,
 
Notice the large distance between the point you place the green and the left edge of the photo, where Mike places the tee. (In fact, Mike now claims that only part of the tee is visible.)   When compared to the distance between the 3rd tee and 2nd green on the aerials, it looks to be much too wide, doesn't it?  

That is what continues to bother me about these various interpretations --the width.  Things seem to be much too far apart as compared to the aerials.    Even when measured at a generous bias, the width of the horizon formed by the 3rd tee, 2nd green, and 4th fairway should be substantially less than 200 yards.    The width of the horizon on which you guys are placing these features looks to be a hell of a lot wider than 200 yards, doesn't it?   Keep in mind we are viewing these things for over a quarter mile away.

Here is a thought, for the sake of trying to move the conversation along . . . what if what I assume is Jeff Brauer's clearing cut line to the left of the 4th fairway is actually Cirba's elusive tree line next to the third tee?   This would shift everything at the horizon well right of where you were thinking, but it would make the scale a bit more reasonable, would it not?

Below is a very rough approximation of what I am suggesting, with the three ellipses representing  approximations of the general locations of the third tee, 2nd green, and current 4th fairway. The line represents an approximation of what I assume to beBrauer's clearing line.   The estimated camera angle would be from about where you suggested --near the dogleg.

Before Mike has a seizure, let me repeat that I really have no idea.  As he is keen to point out. I haven't been there. I have nothing invested in this view and just trying to get the various information sources to fit together. Just throwing it out there because you (Jim) seem to think I ought to come up with my own estimate.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Can your lurker friend provide any further information that might allow some of the rest of us to find and verify the mining claim?  The EPA sounds odd.  Was there even an EPA in the 1910's?  Or was this some environmental assessment completed more recently, where there was a history of the site done?

David,

Thanks for the Brown picture.  It is an order of magnitude clearer.

I agree that this is a bit of a silly exploration.  If Patrick had initially agreed to the approximate location of the photo, then the discussion could have focused on the white track to the right and whether it was the RR, Atlantic, or a continuation of the sandy path in the middle of the picture.  Based on the Brown picture, I'd say it is more likely a continuation of the sandy path.  

But, to continue the analysis of the picture,

Can you confirm that the caption on the photo is exactly as Patrick has stated?

Does Brown put a date on the picture?

Do you believe it was taken from somewhere on the current 6th and looking somewhere out on the current 2, 3 and 4?  According to the Stick Routing the original plan for the 6th was not where the current 6th is.

Would you agree that there is a ridge line, as I've marked in red, through the middle of the picture?  

Do you think the trees beyond that ridge line are on the course property, or are they on the other side of the RR?

Why do you think the trees on the horizon are whitish on the left, dark in the middle, and whitish to the right?  Could it be that the whitish areas are deciduous trees?

Do you think that the trees in the foreground in the ravine are pretty dense?

Where do YOU think the picture was taken from?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Those are good questions, and your line does represent what I think is the clearing line on 4.  I don't know how well you read the topos, but if you look at the topo on the stick routing, you will see no. 4 dogleg at the crest of the hill.  You will also note that in that area, 4 only has one contour line across - about 5 feet.  Just right of the fw, contours bunch together closer, indicating a steeper slope, which eventually was used for housing.

In the Brown photo, the top gets steeper just right of the sandy road, just as indicated on the stick routing topo.  This leads me to believe that sandy road is the right edge of 4 FW and the same basic alignment as used later.  If 3 and 4 were both left of that, then it goes from looking too wide to looking too narrow, at least to my eye.

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.  Actually, the thing that would make your interpretation make sense is the fact that I don't think that housing was contemplated at that early point, but merely fit in later.  And to this day, you can see a caddie path between 3 and 4 on Google photos, which might be what that sandy path turned into, rather than a housing road.

As I said, what works against that theory is that I don't see any steep natural up slope to the left of No. 4 fw in the LZ on the stick topo, which was hand surveyed and presumably pretty accurate.  It appears to me that there is a little slope down to the right from that sandy lane, although perhaps the bushes play tricks on the eyes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

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), behind # 9, along #18, #10, 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. "

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.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Our posts crossed.  Do you not think we can estimate the field of view based on the likely camera technology of the time.  I think we are confusing the width of the clearing in the middle of the picture with the trees on the horizon.  I think the horizon trees could be miles away.  If that were the case, the clearing in the middle would appear quite wide.  If you go back to my earlier field of view pictures and measure how far away the ridge line was and how wide the field of view was, that might help you get a feeling for the dimensions.  I'm of the opinion that the 3rd tee is within the picture on the left side. I don't think the sandy path is necessarily a feature that survived to help place the picture.

[JESII]

Jeff,

Would it be of interest to you that Crump's inital purchase of 184 acres came with a non-compete agreement to not mine or sell sand in amounts greater than $100 per year to other golf clubs?

Also Jeff, when you state that it's clear to you the picture was taken from the current 6th green area you realize we would be looking virtually straight down the ravine's length, don't you? While I understand your point about the edges of the ravine being random, the base is a pretty straight shot, as evidenced by the lake that was eventually created. These pictures are quite clearly NOT down the length of the ravine.



David,

I appreciate you putting an opinion/option on here. I'm able to have these conversations wthout trying to trap you into a position based on your current opinion. For what it's worth, I think your 3 ovals cover too narrow an area...I also think your approximate measurements are off. It's less than 1/4 mile from the 6th fairway to the 3rd tee and the 3rd tee to the water is over 200 yards...not sure how this impacts your perception.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I am not sure it is a simple matter to estimate the field of view based on the date.  If it was a snapshot then they were likely shooting with something like a Kodak Brownie, but I am not certain the field of view with these (I think there were two different lens types used, even early on, one with slight magnification, one without.)   If it was a professional camera or photographer, I have no idea.  35 mm film cameras did not come out until a decade or so later.  

As for the width, I am looking at the width along the horizon line, similar to the line you drew above in red. (As an aside, I would have put a slight indentation on this line between the 6 and 7 inch marks on the ruler.)  If the objects in question are  in the locations that have been suggested, then they would have to be at or almost at this horizon line.  
_________________________________________________

Jim,

I don't think we should be measuring to the lake.  The topo shows trees (I think marked "Scattered Hardwoods") between the lake and the 4th fairway. Measured straight across the topo (just past perpendicular the property line) from the 3rd tee to this marked tree line, the distance is about 190 yards.  On the same line to the lake is about 300 yds.

As for the distance to the 6th fairway.  On Google Earth, from the middle of the sixth fairway at the dogleg to the middle of the front tee on three, I get  about 450 yards, which is about a quarter mile, is it not?  
__________________________________________

Jim and Bryan,

Look at the width of the photo along the horizon line from the left edge of the photo to the trees on the right. I don't think that is only 190 yards.  Do you?  

[Mike Cirba]

From the road to the right of the 4th fairway (the sandy road on the picture going up the hill) to the left edge of the 4th fairway clearing along the trees is approx. 90 yards + another 53 from there to the left edge of the 2nd green (viewed from behind), + another 44 yards to the left edge of the 3rd tee or approximately 187 yards in total.

From the sandy road going right and sloping quickly down to the water below it's about 90 yards, but we can only see perhaps 3/5 of that in the picture as trees block the way.

However, those are all straight line distances, as if Patrick's theory was correct that the camera was way back down to the right on the 6th tee.  In truth, to get those measurements the photo would have to have been taken from fully 90 degrees from the 6th tee, or about 120 yards out past the 6th green.

With it's actual placement of the camera up somewhere between the 6th hole fairway dogleg and the green, those spatial relationships between each feature would change due to the angle of the photo.

[JESII]

David,

You're right, it is 1/4 mile from 6 to 3, my mistake...and I agree that measuring to the lake is not the right idea because we really can't see the lake in any of these pictures. I do think we can make a very reasonable estimate of the angle/orientation of the ravine however based on the Brown picture.

As to the red line horizon length, it's skewed based on the camera angle in relation to the slopes. In other words, I think the 1inch mark at the red line is close to the 5th tee which would be what, 350 yards from the 3rd tee?

 

Bryan,

I don't think the elevation beyond the ridge on #4 supports that straight white line being an extension of the road in the center. The ridge rolls down 20 feet or so.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You're right, it is 1/4 mile from 6 to 3, my mistake...and I agree that measuring to the lake is not the right idea because we really can't see the lake in any of these pictures. I do think we can make a very reasonable estimate of the angle/orientation of the ravine however based on the Brown picture.

Perhaps, but it is difficult without understanding more about the photograph, or at least being able to clearly pick out some definitely identifiable objects.  Mike's tree is not one. 

As to the red line horizon length, it's skewed based on the camera angle in relation to the slopes. In other words, I think the 1 inch mark at the red line is close to the 5th tee which would be what, 350 yards from the 3rd tee?

I'll have to take your word for it regarding the 5th tee. 

But since you brought it up, here is a blowup of that area from about 1 1/2 to 4 1/2.  See anything?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  Missed these questions.

Can you confirm that the caption on the photo is exactly as Patrick has stated?

"Before-construction view from the hight ridge of the 6th hole, facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee."

Does Brown put a date on the picture?

No

Do you believe it was taken from somewhere on the current 6th and looking somewhere out on the current 2, 3 and 4?  According to the Stick Routing the original plan for the 6th was not where the current 6th is.

Not sure.  But Jim's interpretation of the way the ravine sits would seem to preclude the 6th marked on the topo.

Would you agree that there is a ridge line, as I've marked in red, through the middle of the picture?

Pretty much, except I'd have a shallow dip in the left half and I would run it much lower on the right half, if there is even a ridge line on the right.  Also, I am not 100 percent certain that it is a ridge line instead of a clearing line.

Do you think the trees beyond that ridge line are on the course property, or are they on the other side of the RR?

Some of the trees look quite distant, but it is a little difficult to tell at the point you have marked ridge line whether it is a ridge line or a clearing line.   As for other side of the tracks, that would depend upon the angle.

Why do you think the trees on the horizon are whitish on the left, dark in the middle, and whitish to the right?  Could it be that the whitish areas are deciduous trees?

Could be.  Or could be a newer growth.  Or could be a another ridge line.

Do you think that the trees in the foreground in the ravine are pretty dense?

Some are.  Some are scattered.  Depends upon where one looks. 

[JESII]

But since you brought it up, here is a blowup of that area from about 1 1/2 to 4 1/2.  See anything?

Not enough to comment on other than the camera perception angle of the slope down the ravine to the water. It's too soft for the camera to be near the 6th green IMO.

[Bryan Izatt]

As another approach to trying to narrow down where the camera was and how wide a field of view it provided, I submit the following.  

I think the line in red is a ridge line.  Looking from the 6th, the land beyond the 2nd green and 4th fairway falls away and wouldn't be seen from the 6th.  As David suggests, the trees behind could be the edge of the clearing, but why would they stop on the top of the ridge or even anywhere on the property out to the tracks, since the fairway areas seem to be clear cut.  In any vent, let's assume that it is the ridge line.

Using Google Earth, I plotted the elevation profile on a transverse from the current 3rd tee to the current 5th tee.  I have overlaid it on the Brown picture.  It required some shifting left and right to try to get some alignment with the ridge line in red.  I see some alignment, but it is not perfect.  If it is approximately correct, then the 4th fairway and 5th tee are where i've indicated, while the 3rd tee is about 1.25"  outside the picture to the left.

Perhaps the white line leading off to the right was in fact a sandy path along the the top of the ridge (where it would be the driest) down toward the train station marked on the topo map.  Maybe they were taken the cleared lumber to be taken by train to Philadelphia to be used as firewood.  The lumber would certainly have some value as firewood.  Probably not much value as lumber if it was indeed scrub stuff.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

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

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

[Mike Cirba]

I'm wondering why the large tree (actually, David was correct in stating that it is two closely adjacent trees one behind the other) seen on the left side of the 4th fairway can't be used as a reference point?

Since David produced the Brown photo, with it's much better resolution, it's very clear that it's the same tree(s) as seen in the 1920 aerial, as well as the 1931 aerial.  

Brown Photo

DELETED per Legal Challenge and Censorship

1920 Aerial




1931 Aerial




Also, still hoping to see chronologically what was the first report that Crump found the site hunting?   Father Carr didn't say that in his 1915 article, and Joe Bunker wrote in 1914/15;

George A. Crump a few years ago while taking a horseback trip near Clementon, New Jersey, was so impressed with a sandy tract that he invited a number of Philadelphians to go on an exploring trip with him.   They found a tract of virgin forest made up chiefly of scrub oak and pine and then and there decided that it contained a splendid golf course.

With all of the men who supposedly said that, I'd be very curious when that was first written and by whom.   To me, none of this is mutually exclusive.   After finding the site, it seems to me that a guy like Crump who loved to hunt would do so while exploring it for other purposes.   Still, it would be nice to see an actual dated quote here instead of hearsay.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, You need to remove the copy of my photo - the one depicting part of the old image, with with the ruler visible on top - from your post above, from your flickr account, and from anywhere else you may have copied it.  As I explained to you above, you do not have permission to use it, and you are violating copyright law by posting it without my permission.  

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba, so you know up front, you DO NOT have my permission to copy or repost my photographs of the image in the Brown book.  I didn't spend the time setting them up to get a decent rendering to provide you with more fodder to use to further clog up the thread.   Leave the one up you reposted if you wish, but no more.
______________________________________________

David,

You know those trees are the same in each photo and mark a very valid reference point to the left of the 4th fairway near the crest of the hill.

Is this the equivalent of taking your ball and going home when the evidence doesn't suit your purposes?

You got into this thread hoping to prove me wrong.   When that didn't work, well...here we are.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()