[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

For my two points I'm measuring the distance between the same sets of trees seen on all three of these photos.   I'm measuring it horizontally (not on any angle) on Google Earth at roughly 50 yards, which then roughly corresponds in the Brown photo to 1.5 inches.   That doesn't leave enough room to the left to incorporate the 3rd tee, and on the right leaves about 5 inches or roughly 175 yards (although I'm sure there is some trigonomic or vector math that would make that more accurate if one knew the exact angle of the photo).   But, I'm ball parking it based on my visual study of the trees in those three photos.  

It helps to blow up the photos a bit, but I'm 99.99999% certain that those are all the same trees.

[JESII]

Mike,

I think you have to agree on a camera angle before you can measure between reference points. I also think the large tree to the left side of 4 is short of the fairway and the stand alone trees on the right are way up into the length of the fairway. Is that your second reference set?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Yes, those are the trees I'm using, and I agree with your placement.   The large tree(s) on the left are just about the point where the wasteland stops and fairway starts and the tall, top-heavy trees are further up on the right.

I'm not measuring the distance between those two points, specifically, except to note them as the outer boundaries of the 4th fairway on the photos.   Instead, I'm going to the top of the hill on 4 via Google Earth, measuring the width of the fairway at that point as roughly 50 yards, and then going back to the photo and noting that the area in question is just a hair over 1.5 inches, or about from the 5 to 6.5 inch marks on David's photo.

That leaves us with 5 inches to the right, or a very rough 175 yards, and about 1 7/8 inches to the left, or about 80 yards very roughly.

From the left edge of the 4th fairway it's about 90 yards to the right edge of the 3rd tee, which is why I suggested to Bryan that I'm in agreement with his thought that the photo doesn't reach the 3rd tee on the left.

Determining the right edge of the photo is trickier because without knowing the angle small errors on the near end are magnified on the far end.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Although you might be 99.99999% certain, some of the rest of us are slightly (majorly) less certain.  As Jim suggests, I think your 50 yard measurement is suspect given the placement of the left and right trees relative to the camera.  I'm also not sure where you see the right trees in the old picture, or where you would place either on GE.  Can you mark with arrows where you think the left and right trees are on the old photo and also on the GE aerial?

Can I not persuade you to try my little photo interpretation test above?  And, Jim, you too.

[DMoriarty]

Cirba,

You don't have my permission copy it or repost my photo.  Please delete it and don't repost it.   Is there something about this that you don't understand?  
_____________________________________

Bryan, you wrote:  

I assume in your second picture that you meant 4th fairway, not the 2nd fairway.  I'd say that you pasted it about a quarter of an inch to high.  The orange line on the right should align with the white line (road), IMHO.

Yes I meant the 4th green.   But as for the placement this is part of the problem.  The position of the 4th fairway is locked to the position of the second green, and the position of the second green is set at the left edge along the ridge lines.

As a little exercise, how tall do you think the trees in the foreground (on the down slope of the ravine) are?  We can see over them, so they can't be more than 30' (10 yards) tall, given the depth of the ravine near the top end. If you use that as a measure, and turn it side ways and measure across the foreground near the bottom of the picture, how wide do you make it?  It's not very wide, again, IMHO, as I can only fit about 5 trees laid on their sides across the picture.

Given that I doubt this photo could have been taken from ground level at this angle, I am not sure I accept your logic here.  But let's go with your figures.  Part way down toward the ravine you calculate 50 yards across.  If we have 50 yards horizontal viewing angle in the foreground of the photo (at the bottom of those trees), then we are not dealing with only 30 degrees of viewing angle.   I don't' know the distance of those trees, but I trust that you will agree that those trees in the center of the photo are still a long ways from the bottom of the ravine.  If so, assuming they were 50 yards away might be a stretch.   If they are 50 yards from the camera, and the horizontal viewing dimension at their base is at this point is 50 yards, then the angle of viewing would have to be over 50 degrees.

As for your quiz,  I never claimed to be an expert on judging photographs unaided.  Fortunately we do have google earth and we can work off of real distances to try and understand the photo we are viewing, otherwise we'd even be more clueless than we already are.    

That said, I will take some wild guesses.   For viewing angle in degrees I will go with around 70, 50, and 30-35.  I'll say the trees are around 50 or 60 ft and about 375 yards way.   Beginning of the fairway 60 or 70 yards, and the cart path is about 30 yards from the center cut of the fairway.  Elevation drop I have no idea but I will guess 15 ft to beginning of the fairway.  

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Here you go...it's easier to see on larger versions if you need them...let me know...thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  I have gone through the trouble of preparing a higher resolution image of the old photograph and would be glad to make it available for study, just as soon as you take down my photo and agree to quit copying and reposting my images without my permission.

[JESII]

David,

I'm sure there's a difference between that request and what Tom Paul used to do to you and Macwood but I sure can't decipher it...

[DMoriarty]

Jim, There is really no comparison.   I am making no claim to control the underlying image.  It is readily available to Mike or anyone else with the wherewithal to track it down, and is even in various libraries. And i have already provided him and everyone else the image to study..  And I am not trying to extract bizarre and unreasonable conditions out of Cirba.  I am only asking him to behave with common sense and common courtesy, and as the law requires of him, and refrain from reposting images I have created,  edited and altered so as to make them more useful to me and others.  If he wants to do his own edits and changes to the underlying image, I cannot stop him, so long as he doesn't use my creation as his basis.  Hell, I probably would have given him his own clean copy to puke all over had he asked and if he hadnt veen such an A-hole about it.  It is just the ones i edit and improve that i dont want him using.

I put alot of work into these things to make them viewable and useful, and I don't like seeing my work defaced by his juvenile scribble or reposted so many times that others cringe at the mere sight of my creation. Had he any common sense or common courtesy, this wouldn't be an issue,  but because he is who he is, he needs to be told.  

[JESII]

David,

I assume you do put in alot of work on these things as they are quite good and helpful...but I assume you do so for the sake of advancing the conversation...

[DMoriarty]

I do it to advance the conversation, but that in no way impacts my contol over my image and how and when it is copied.  I ought to be able to control how and when I participate, and I don't want my creative input usurped and bastardized.

Besides, the very reason I don't want Cirba using my stuff is because his use invariably detracts from the conversation, and his idiotic habit of puking up all the material multiple times a page accomplishes nothing but clogging up the thread, burying potentially novel and interesting information, and diminishing the very material he keeps copying. In short, he is a waste of time, and I don't want him using my stuff to waste my time.

Plus, Cirba has claimed many times that he wants nothing to do with my posts, so what exactly is the problem here?  Surely if he wants nothing to do with my posts he doesn't need to be scribbling all over then or puking up my stuff every few posts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Welcome back.  Perhaps you should read the last few pages before leaping back in.

Mike no longer claims that the white line is the RR.

How can that be ?
He proclaimed, with absolute certainty that it was, despite my telling him that it wasn't.
So this was just another Cirba distraction, a distraction created for the sole purpose of serving his agenda.

I was away for the last few days, taking pictures, of RR tracks, landforms and the like.
Remember, Cirba claimed that the RR tracks were 18 feet above the course, from the 18th green to the 14th green.
Brauer claimed the RR tracks were 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway.
The photos I have prove both of them to be completely wrong, repeat completely wrong, yet Brauer insisted the RR tracks were 30-40 feet above the 18th fairway despite the google earth readings showing just the opposite.

And, Brauer claimed, that the moment he rounded East Atlantic Ave, that he could tell that the landform to the south was hilly.
What a crock of crap that is.
Forget that the RR tracks run at grade and the land south of the RR tracks is elevated above them.
Forget that the dense forest and undergrowth prevent any visual beyond 25 feet, Brauer, with his X-ray vision and one or two visits to PV has claimed what superman couldn't see.


David thinks the picture was taken from atop the water tower near the 12th tee looking ENE.  Perhaps that desrves a little of your green ink.

I don't believe the photo was taken from the 6th green for two reasons, first, the land to the immediate right of the 4th fairway falls off precipitously, and that's not indicated in the photo.  Second, when you take photos from the 6th green and near the 6th green, the concave crescent landform is to the right, while in the Brown/Shelly photo, it's a convex landform.

With the debris piled at the base of the photo, I can't see how it could be taken from the water tower.
In addition, the landforms that would come into view from the water tower are different

You are the only one left that thinks that the caption is literally accurate and that the photo was centred on the 3rd tee and 2nd green and taken from the beginning of the 6th fairway. 

I don't mind standing alone.
I think the convex landform is the landform that forms the 5th green/6th tee, and as such, that would indicate that the photo was taken from that position.  Any photo taken from the 6th green would reflect a concave landform to the right, and that's not the case in the photo.
The photos lend credence to that position.

The background landforms don't match at all. But, hang tough, you're sounding very much like a Merionette clinging to a myth.
Having spent some time there recently, I think I'm better qualified to comment on the land forms than you are.

Another observation I'd like to make is the following.

I noticed, on the tall trees, (30-40-50-60) feet, that the first 10-15-20 feet is all trunk.
But, on the smaller trees, you know, the dwarfs you claim populated the area, the canopy, the branches and leaves start at 5 feet off the ground and continue to the top of the tree.  So, the shorter trees block one's view more than the taller trees.
Since you and the other cretins insist that the trees were short, that would create an even more inpenetrable visual barrier.

And, I photo'd the view from the RR tracks, south to the course and from the course to the RR tracks.

Almost all of # 17 is totally blind from the tracks due to the high ridge that runs between the tracks and the 17th hole.
A second high ridge runs between the 17th hole and the 16th hole, making # 16 and # 15 invisible, and that's without trees.

As to the area of the 14th and 16th green, that was all swamp, hardly ideal land for golf by any measure.

The 18th green, 1st tee, 1st fairway and 1st green are also well above the RR grade, making views of any land south of the tracks difficult to impossible, and again, that's without trees.  Add in the trees and it's impossible.

The only possible view is parallel to the road that crosses in front of the 18th green, and again, that's without trees.

But, as we know from the early photos, and detailed descriptions for Simon Carr and Tillinghast, the course was covered in dense forest and undergrowth so thick that Carr said it was "Jungle" like, and Tillinghast claimed it was so thick it was hidden from mortal eyes.

With that body of evidence, anyone who claims that Crump first saw and qualified the land as ideal for golf, from a passing eastbound train, also believes in the tooth fairy.

It was a myth, Shelly, Pine Valley's official historian told us that in his book.

But, if you like believing in the tooth fairy and the PV train myth, who am I to burst your bubble.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

You didn't mark where you think those trees are on the GE aerial.  I assume that that is where you are getting your distances from.  Applying a straight across width of the fairway from GE to the angled distance between the trees in the Brown/Shelley picture is suspect.  How did you do it?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

If you have a new version of the picture that you think will advance the discussion, then you should post it.  Withholding it to try to leverage Mike seems silly to me.  This is a discussion group.  Trying to manage somebody else's participation in the discussion seems like a waste of time.  The rest of us can filter Mike as we see fit.

Arguably, your on-going screeds about Mike clog up the threads as much as Mike's reiteration of articles and pictures.

   

[Bryan Izatt]

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

You keep arguing that specific parts of the course are not visible from the tracks.  That's not the point.  The point is that there were hills and valleys that may have looked like good golfing territory to Crump.  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.

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?

[Mike Cirba]

While I'm pointing out that the trees in all three photos are exactly the same, and therefore show us the general location and angle of the photograph, David is still up in the water tower firing bullets.

I'm truly not sure why he's here on this thread, actually...he told us early on he knows little about Pine Valley, he hadn't been following the conversation, he's never been there.

Frankly, he's here simply to try and prove me wrong, yet he's fallen short time and again.

Despite this, and despite the fact that I rarely agree with his findings or conclusions, I'd never seek to censor him.   Instead, I trust that others here can judge the correctness of our respective positions for themselves.   However, I do wish he could complete just one post over the past 18 months without filling it with personal insults directed at me...that would be a nice change.

From his opening salvo showing us a train schedule without the existing Sumner station, which others quickly pointed out was erroneous, to inadvertently proving that despite Crump playing winter golf on weekends in Atlantic City for over a decade, it wasn't mentioned in newspapers, to his attempt to use 1931 aerials to show the general forestation of the property in 1910, to his latest very lame attempt to point the camera anywhere on the property except at the 4th fairway looking back to the entrance road and railroad tracks, it's been one mistaken diversion after another.   And yet he tries to censor me accusing me of clogging up the thread.

To be fair, David has provided us the clearer photo, and I thought it was valuable that he found an article (also corroborated by one Joe Bausch previously found) that stated that there was open flat pastureland just adjacent to the property Crump purchased.   I believe this is simply more evidence of how easily spotted the unusual hilly, sandy landforms would have been from a train or automobile in contrast to the general flatland of south Jersey.   But those have been notable exceptions after months of his personal insults, wild-eyed rants, and fallacious, flailing dead ends trying to prove me wrong.  

And he complains about the thread getting clogged.  

Has he noticed the green ink here, spouting the same mistaken assumptions, mis-characterization of others statements and insulting accusations here on page 44 that first appeared on page one, despite a world of evidence presented here to the contrary?   Now we're supposed to look at 2011 photos taken in the summer/fall to compare against what the property looked like in the winter of 1910.  

Yet after all of this, no one has learned a god darned thing about topos, despite the fact that Bryan points out to us that the 1898 topo varies considerably from the later ones, which is very strong evidence that the property was mined in the interim, which would have opened the site to view even more.  

No one has learned a thing about the stick routings, and what was there before Colt's viist, or what changed after Colt left.

Seriously, I think this whole photo thing is a diversion because the original points Patrick tried to make on this thread are WRONG, in light of all the evidence that followed.   So, instead of actually discussing that evidence and learning something, we're stuck here in constipation mode.

I told you that this thread would need a plunger.

[DMoriarty]

Me censoring Cirba?  More hyperbolic hysteria from Mike the Martyr.   He does not have my permission to copy or repost my stuff. Otherwise I have no control over the gibberish and nonsense he insists upon posting.   Since when does not supplying him my stuff to use as his fodder equate to censorship?   Is he really so dense that he cannot even figure out how to express himself without using my stuff?  

[DMoriarty]

There are a number of details in the photo that make me doubt that we are even looking at the correct fairway.  One issue is that a secondary ridge line between the camera position and supposed position of the 4th fairway.  Here is a blowup of part of the image, middle left, easily locatable by following along the white path.    Note that there is a break in the path and it shifts to the side.  The visibility of the path is interrupted by a ridge line, and given that the photo was taken from a higher elevation, and given angle of the road in relation to the viewing angle, the ridge  must be fairly significant.  One can make out some of the ridge line in this blowup. 



I have been unable to find such a ridge line in the terrain leading to the 4th fairway, at least not one that fits the proportions.    Moreover the photos from the 4th tee show no such ridge line.  Indeed, they show a rather abrupt hill leading up to the fairway, not at all like the gradual slope in this blowup and the larger photo.

[JESII]

David,

How about in the immediate foreground of this photo? The 4th tee is well higher than the immediate surrounds; front, right and back. While I'd think it's current form was the result of some build up in the construction process, isn't a small ridge, as shown in your enhanced blowup, frequently identified for use in course design?

For what it's worth, I've been pretty sure the road in the JAB picture was on the slope up from the tee to the fairway and this small ridge being used for the tee would confirm it in my opinion.

[DMoriarty]

David,

How about in the immediate foreground of this photo? The 4th tee is well higher than the immediate surrounds; front, right and back. While I'd think it's current form was the result of some build up in the construction process, isn't a small ridge, as shown in your enhanced blowup, frequently identified for use in course design?

It could be I guess, but looking at the photo in the book, it doesn't look like at that point it was built up, or that it was set on a pronounced ridge.  I don't see where any of the foreground is blocked from view, except perhaps by tall grass.  Do you really see a portion where a ridge line is blocking visibility?  Remember the old  photo would be looking from a substantial elevation above the tee, so for a ridge line to show up, it would have to be fairly substantial.   

For what it's worth, I've been pretty sure the road in the JAB picture was on the slope up from the tee to the fairway and this small ridge being used for the tee would confirm it in my opinion.

Given what has been described, I would have thought that this ridge was in the entirely wrong position for the tee.   Does a tee placement there truly work with what else you have been thinking? 

[JESII]

Sure! It works well with what I've been thinking although I can't admit to having it placed right there. I didn't really have it exactly placed although this does fit with my idea of the fairway.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

What happened to your quiz?   Did I fail?  You aren't waiting for responses from Cirba and Jim are you?  
_________________________________________

Jim,  

I did find a photo of the 3rd green that shows it and possibly (not sure) the 4th tee sitting on a bit of a ridge, but I am not sure it is a high enough ridge to create the visual effect in the photo.  But maybe it was before construction.  Still though, I am not seeing how one could place the 4th tee onto that little ridge and not further garble what seem to be some pretty questionable proportions and perspective already.  It doest seem like you are putting the tee anywhere near the bottom low point.  But obviously you would know better than I.
_____________________________________________

Speaking of garbled perspectives, things just get curiouser and curiouser.  I've placed the part of the photo in question next to another, one from the May 1913 edition of American Golfer.



Note the bare area circled in the distance center, the  angled different color trees at set at an angle, and the white rectangle in the right.  Also notice the trees well below the ridge on which the man is standing.  While the perspectives are slightly different, they appear to have been taken from the same general approximate area.   With the bottom pic obviously having been taken before the land was cleared.  

But the caption is curious:

PINE VALLEY.

The new course in New Jersey near Philadelphia. Looking over the rolling country from the third
teeing-ground. The ground is being cleared rapidly and the fairways and putting-greens prepared
for seeding.

From the third teeing ground?  Something is wrong here.  Either with this caption, with the one's in the books, or with both.  I cannot find anything from the third teeing ground that might look like either picture?   Is there anything remotely similar?

Also strange is the timing of this photo.   The photo was published in May 1913.   They had reportedly been clearing trees for many months prior.  Here is what Tillinghast ("Hazard") had written the month before, in April 1913 . . .

 The new Pine Valley Golf Club at Clementon, New Jersey, which promises to offer the most notable course in the vicinity of Philadelphia, has a force of workmen removing trees and underbrush and gradually the tract is being opened to view. As the work progresses the first favorable impressions become deep rooted convictions, for the land is remarkable indeed. Everything indicates that the fond hopes of the builders will be realized.
  Already seven of the holes are opened up and rapidly cleared fairways being prepared for Spring seeding. Several of the greens are ready for preparation.
  Thus far the holes which are being prepared present golf of this description. . . .

AWT then went on to describe the 1st through 6th holes and the finishing hole, as well as a bit about the 7th.

So it sounds like they had been working on this section of the course since the beginning of the year, and it was quite far along even by April.  Yet nothing showing in this photo, published a month later.   It could have been a old photo, I guess, but even if it was a few months old we should see something, shouldn't we?   Hadn't they begun working on the land very shortly after purchasing?  

And what gives with the caption. In which direction is this photo taken?   Toward the RR tracks?   It sure doesn't look like the terrain matches when one looks at the topos.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Sorry, I missed your response to the quiz in the detritus.

As a little exercise, how tall do you think the trees in the foreground (on the down slope of the ravine) are?  We can see over them, so they can't be more than 30' (10 yards) tall, given the depth of the ravine near the top end. If you use that as a measure, and turn it side ways and measure across the foreground near the bottom of the picture, how wide do you make it?  It's not very wide, again, IMHO, as I can only fit about 5 trees laid on their sides across the picture.

Given that I doubt this photo could have been taken from ground level at this angle, I am not sure I accept your logic here.  But let's go with your figures.  Part way down toward the ravine you calculate 50 yards across.  If we have 50 yards horizontal viewing angle in the foreground of the photo (at the bottom of those trees), then we are not dealing with only 30 degrees of viewing angle.   I don't' know the distance of those trees, but I trust that you will agree that those trees in the center of the photo are still a long ways from the bottom of the ravine.  If so, assuming they were 50 yards away might be a stretch.   If they are 50 yards from the camera, and the horizontal viewing dimension at their base is at this point is 50 yards, then the angle of viewing would have to be over 50 degrees. 

I was suggesting another method of guesstimation.  Perhaps the trees were only 20 feet tall, since the ravine was shallow at the top end and we can see over them easily.  Or they might be more or less than 50 yards away.  The point was that the width of the picture in the foreground is not very wide.

As for your quiz,  I never claimed to be an expert on judging photographs unaided.  Fortunately we do have google earth and we can work off of real distances to try and understand the photo we are viewing, otherwise we'd even be more clueless than we already are.   

Unfortunately GE is of limited use for measuring when we can't reach agreement on where anything in the picture is.  Apparently none of us are good estimators based on pictures.  I offered these pictures up as a point of comparison and perspective.

That said, I will take some wild guesses.   For viewing angle in degrees I will go with around 70, 50, and 30-35.  I'll say the trees are around 50 or 60 ft and about 375 yards way.   Beginning of the fairway 60 or 70 yards, and the cart path is about 30 yards from the center cut of the fairway.  Elevation drop I have no idea but I will guess 15 ft to beginning of the fairway.

The viewing angles of the three pictures are 63, 37 and 25 degrees.  Narrower than you would expect.

The trees range from 70 to 85 feet tall.  Significantly bigger the PV's 1913 trees, I think.

The tree line is 360 yards away.  Very similar to the distance to the ridge on the 4th fairway at PV.

The beginning of the fairway is 135 yards away and the width from the centreline to the cart path is 35 yards.

The elevation drop is 40 feet.

Yuo did good on some and not so well on others.  The only point I would make is that it is really tough to judge distances and sizes from photos without some measurable reference points. 

In that regard, in the photo from the 4th tee, is that a person standing in the middle of the fairway on the ridge.  If it is a person, could we agree that they are 5 to 6 feet tall?  Too bad they are not standing beside a tree.   

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Nice find on the photo.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Nice find on the photo.

It would be hard to accept that it is from the 3rd tee looking south or south-east.  

I would agree.

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?

It could be.
My guess is that both Brown and Shelly relied on an inscription on the back of the photo, rather than their visual interpretation of the photo.

Wherever it is, it doesn't look like thick jungle-like forest.

It sure does.
Your problem is that you forget that the land was already cleared.
Look at the feet of that fellow and you can see the cleared area and debris.

Accounts indicate that GAC began clearing the land immediately after the Oct/Nov purchase.

For the moment, let's accept that as factual.
If that's the case, how did he know where to clear ?
That would have required a general routing to be in place the moment he closed on the property.

Or, is it possible, that he had done the routing exercise prior to closing ?
That his years of familiarity with the land, vis a vis hunting on it, extensively, got him to start laying out holes prior to the purchase ?

Is it also possible that Colt visited the property with him in 1911 ?
And that the result of that visit sparked the exercise of creating a general routing shortly thereafter, and prior to the purchase.

I see some sandy areas and areas in the ravine where trees are relatively sparse.

That's because they had already begun clearing.
Would you show us the sandy areas and areas where trees are relatively sparse in this photo.
You want to make that claim because you have an agenda as well



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.
The man is wearing a heavy coat so it is likely winter.
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 don't believe that either area circled by David, is on the PV property.

How many months could they have been clearing trees if the property was only bought in the fall of 1912.  

It was stated that clearing commenced immediately after the purchase.
Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, April  That's a lot of time spent clearing

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.  

22,000+ trees and all that scrub is a lot of work.
22,000+ trees and all that scrub would have prevented anyone from seeing anything from the train.

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?

NO, March.

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.

What are you talking about ?
The first four (4) holes are the holes that exist today.
That sounds like they knew where they wanted to put them, wouldn't you agree ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()