The 13th could be the high point if it's definitely not the 3rd. I'm not there, but I'll look at what the 13th could show...how would that impact our agreement that the distant sandy patch is consistent? How about the white structure (house?)?
I am of the opinion that both photos were taken from the same general area. Maybe not the exact same place but at least the same ridge. So if one picture moves, I'd probably assume the other one would follow.
__________________________________
Bryan, I came up with something very similar in my overlay, but with no "skewing." Do you mean rotating instead of skewing? I had to rotate the pic a but, but then we had already discussed how the horizon line was far from horizontal on the first pic.
I don't think that this is indicative that one or the other pictures were taken from higher up in the same location.
Why not? Wouldn't raising the camera create the difference we see in the photos?
The simplest and most logical explanation of the two pictures is that they were taken as the captions say they were, one from the elevated 6th fairway and the other from the 3rd tee.
It would be, if the geometry matched up or was even possible, but I don't see it. Compare what is visible above the ridge line in the first pic to what is visible above the dark trees in the second. It is almost identical. How could this be when one has a 150 ft. ridge, and the other doesn't?
As for your elevation profile, isn't your white line way too far left? The sandy area is in the middle of the first photo, but you have it on the far left edge. Move it to the middle, and you get a different elevation profile for the corresponding view from the 3rd tee, one facing more east and one where even more of a relatively steep face would be visible from the 3rd tee.
Also, re your elevation profile, The third tee is higher than the second green, but even discounting this, the profiles still don't match up. We aren't seeing any more of that opposite slope in the man pic than in without. Also, I still have not heard any sort of satisfying explanation as to why the intervening ridge does not block out all but a bit of the opposite slope.
In short, we still have way too much of the opposite slope visible in the first pic, and not nearly enough in the second.
But then I've said this before. You guys seem to have made up your mind otherwise, and nothing I will say will likely change your minds. That said, if either of you guys really consider what these elevation profiles tell us, I think you'll be left asking yourselves the same questions I have been asking. Namely, would it have been possible to see so much of the opposite slope from the ridge on the sixth hole? The answer I keep coming up with is NO, and it is not even close.
Now maybe had I been there, it would all make sense to me. But I don't understand how going there would change the physical geometry of the place so drastically from what is shown on the maps and topos.
Jim is there any point from which you can peer over the 4th fairway from the 6th fairway? If so, how much of the opposite slope is visible?