[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What are all of those dense green things flanking the tracks ?

Are they Pine Trees ?

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees. 
From that angle they look predominant, but as you walk along you can see that they are intermittent and that it is predominantly deciduous trees along the tracks.  In winter the pine trees stick out more than the leafless deciduous trees when you look along the track.

Bryan, thanks for taking the time and effort to take these photos, they're great.
However, what you're forgetting about the pines, and the deciduous trees is that they didn't exist in a narrow corridor that serves as a buffer today.
They existed in depth, from the tracks, throughout the the entire property.

On some of the photos, the current buffer prevents any meaningful analytical view to the south
Imagine if instead of a narrow buffer, a continuum of the pines and deciduous trees existed.
You couldn't see a thing and you certainly couldn't see the landform.

Remember, this train was moving east at 60+ mph.

When you consider that, you have to remember the obstructing landforms to the south, immediately adjancent to the tracks, especially as you approach the 17th tee.  Many of your photos were taken in a direction almost 180 degrees the opposite of the view a passenger would have sitting in his seat.

You have to present the photos or the subject of the photos in the context that Crump would have viewed the landform, not the context that you, Mike or others might choose to view the landform.

And, you have to remember, that the only reason you can see the golf course is that the dense forest and jungle like underbrush has been cleared and fairways and greens planted

The photos I have and will post are representative of what I saw on both sides of the track. 
Why are you so paranoid about some fantastical agenda?

Let's just say that experience can be a great educator.
But, I do think the photos are terrific and representative, so far, of what I've observed over the years

The picture of Old Mill Road was just supposed to be informative of its current state. 

It seemed that you were stating that since the road was largely overgrown today, that it had little use circa 1912, and I thought that was disingenuous.

In conjunction with pictures I had previously posted of the other end of the road and the middle part of it, I thought it illustrated that it was never more than a single lane track. 

I'm not so sure that you can draw that conclusion.  Especially about viable widths in those days.
You can't view roads circa 1910-1912 in the context of today's six lane highways.
Nor can you view the volume of traffic in the same sense.
There's a tunnel north of San Francisco, in the area where huge gun mounts were dug into the bedrock in order to defend against a Japenese attack.  That tunnel, circa 1941 is a single lane road with a stoplight at both ends.
Are we to assume, because it was a single lane road that it didn't allow for the direct passage of important traffic ?
You can't dismiss the road from the main highway as not being a viable route into PV just because it was narrow.
If Google Maps displays it, it can't be that insignificant, even 100 years later.

It persuaded me that although it was possible to drive into PV in the early days, the train seemed more likely to be the main way of access. 
If you feel otherwise, feel free.

I don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to indicate.

Ask yourself, who would build a golf course that couldn't be accessed by any other conveyance than a special train/s.
Remember, not all trains made that stop.

Bruce,

I think that's Groom Lake, but hmmmmm, it never occurred to me before - perhaps Patrick's brain has been seized by aliens. 
It wouldn't be the first time

[DMoriarty]

I won't speak for Patrick and I am not really even sure what these two are arguing about.  These fights about what might have visible from a train entirely miss the point, and the photos from a century later are equally pointless, especially because there is now a golf course.

As for some of the comments, I've never doubted that this rolling land was interesting or that it was much different from the land around it. Those are two factors (among others) which lead me to doubt the accuracy of the AWT discovery story.

In addition to being a golfer, Crump was a sportsman, a hunter, an avid outdoorsman.  Pine Valley was about 12 miles from his home. Judging from the various descriptions and maps, it may have been the closest remotely interesting and suitable land for hunting. It is impossible to believe that such land had gone unnoticed by Crump.  

Yet, according to AWT's version, Crump had no idea that these rolling, wood-covered sand hills existed a dozen miles from his home.  The land had gone unnoticed by Crump and he only became aware that such land existed as a result of a chance glance out the window of a fast moving train around 1910 or so.  No way.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick - you're absolutely right about the area to the west of PV being more interesting.  For example, the land along PA82 between Kennet Square and Coatesville is calling out to be a golf course.  But nowhere do you have the excellent ground movement combined with the sandy soil we have in the PV area. 

I was up driving from I-195 to Freehold on Saturday.  You can easily tell it's sandy soil when moving 60 mph, and seeing those sandy areas combined with really interesting topography must have piqued their interest.

[Bruce Katona]

Thank you....Monday; fingers forgot how to spell......

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

What are all of those dense green things flanking the tracks ?

Are they Pine Trees ?

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees. 
From that angle they look predominant, but as you walk along you can see that they are intermittent and that it is predominantly deciduous trees along the tracks.  In winter the pine trees stick out more than the leafless deciduous trees when you look along the track.

Bryan, thanks for taking the time and effort to take these photos, they're great.
However, what you're forgetting about the pines, and the deciduous trees is that they didn't exist in a narrow corridor that serves as a buffer today.
They existed in depth, from the tracks, throughout the the entire property.

On some of the photos, the current buffer prevents any meaningful analytical view to the south
Imagine if instead of a narrow buffer, a continuum of the pines and deciduous trees existed.
You couldn't see a thing and you certainly couldn't see the landform.

The point in posting the pictures looking north into the "virgin" forest is that they demonstrated to me that I could look, in person, into that forest and see enough definition to see ravines and small hills in the wintertime.  I can only assume that that was true of looking into the south side before there was a golf course or clearing.  It's deductive logic and not proven fact.  It can't be factually proven today, a century after the fact.  The Tillinghast stories say that Crump could see the rolling hills.  We have no factual evidence that he was wrong.  Your deductive logic says he couldn't.  My logic says he could.

I continue to not understand how you can say that the "you certainly couldn't see the landform" (a rolling hill) that is currently the 17th green/18th tee.  It is mere feet from your face and it is in your face as it rises up and recedes as you travel from the 18th green to the 17th tee.  Anybody could raise there eyes up as the sped by and see the top go up and down could they not?

Or that you couldn't see the landform of the stream valley beside what became the 18th fairway.  It also was mere feet from the edge of the RR right of way.  The ravines on the other side of the track are clearly visible for hundreds of feet into the forest in winter.

Remember, this train was moving east at 60+ mph.

When you consider that, you have to remember the obstructing landforms to the south, immediately adjancent to the tracks, especially as you approach the 17th tee.  Many of your photos were taken in a direction almost 180 degrees the opposite of the view a passenger would have sitting in his seat.

You have to present the photos or the subject of the photos in the context that Crump would have viewed the landform, not the context that you, Mike or others might choose to view the landform.

What angle do you think Crump had his gaze locked into as he sped by?  Why do you think his gaze would be locked in an oblique angle?  My experience is that my head swivels as I'm passing by objects of interest while I'm driving (dangerous, I'm sure). On a train, I'm not restricted in swiveling to take in a view.

And, you have to remember, that the only reason you can see the golf course is that the dense forest and jungle like underbrush has been cleared and fairways and greens planted

That's not true.  That's why I looked to the dense bush on the north side.  In winter, it was easy to see in for some distance.

The photos I have and will post are representative of what I saw on both sides of the track. 
Why are you so paranoid about some fantastical agenda?

Let's just say that experience can be a great educator.
But, I do think the photos are terrific and representative, so far, of what I've observed over the years

The picture of Old Mill Road was just supposed to be informative of its current state. 

It seemed that you were stating that since the road was largely overgrown today, that it had little use circa 1912, and I thought that was disingenuous.

You seem to think badly of anybody who doesn't agree with you.

In conjunction with pictures I had previously posted of the other end of the road and the middle part of it, I thought it illustrated that it was never more than a single lane track. 

I'm not so sure that you can draw that conclusion.  Especially about viable widths in those days.
You can't view roads circa 1910-1912 in the context of today's six lane highways.
Nor can you view the volume of traffic in the same sense.
There's a tunnel north of San Francisco, in the area where huge gun mounts were dug into the bedrock in order to defend against a Japenese attack.  That tunnel, circa 1941 is a single lane road with a stoplight at both ends.
Are we to assume, because it was a single lane road that it didn't allow for the direct passage of important traffic ?
You can't dismiss the road from the main highway as not being a viable route into PV just because it was narrow.
If Google Maps displays it, it can't be that insignificant, even 100 years later.

Aren't you the one who is critical of silly analogies?  San Francisco, really?  

You really have that much faith in Google Maps as to indications of importance of roads they portray?  One wonders what their source material was for Old Mill Road.  It looked like it had been derelict for quite some time and part of it is on private property now.  You should try and see if your GPS will try to route you on it next time yo're there.  Worst case you might end up in the north end of Lake Lekau.

It persuaded me that although it was possible to drive into PV in the early days, the train seemed more likely to be the main way of access. 
If you feel otherwise, feel free.

I don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to indicate.

Ask yourself, who would build a golf course that couldn't be accessed by any other conveyance than a special train/s.
Remember, not all trains made that stop.

No argument.  That probably why PV obtained a right of way on the road across Ireland's property.  Presumably East Atlantic came later and supplanted Old Mill Road.

Bruce,

I think that's Groom Lake, but hmmmmm, it never occurred to me before - perhaps Patrick's brain has been seized by aliens. 
It wouldn't be the first time

Oh, do they keep giving it back?  I was wondering if I could notice  

[Bryan Izatt]

Thank you....Monday; fingers forgot how to spell......

No worries, Area 51 added some humor to my day.

[Neil_Crafter]

this is definitely a thread that should be over on our sister site railwaylineatlas.com 

Are there no trolls over there?   

if it's on the internet then there are trolls I'm afraid.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees. 

From that angle they look predominant,

Bryan, that's why your photos are so significant. 
That's the view Crump would have sitting in the railroad car, traveling east at 60=mph.
That's why those photos are so relevant.
They depict the angled view a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.






Remember, those dense woods and jungle like underbrush extended into visual infinity, whereas today, those woods and underbrush are but a narrow buffer between the tracks and the golf course.  With no golf course there, nothing was visible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What are all of those dense green things flanking the tracks ?

Are they Pine Trees ?

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees.  
From that angle they look predominant, but as you walk along you can see that they are intermittent and that it is predominantly deciduous trees along the tracks.  In winter the pine trees stick out more than the leafless deciduous trees when you look along the track.

Bryan, thanks for taking the time and effort to take these photos, they're great.
However, what you're forgetting about the pines, and the deciduous trees is that they didn't exist in a narrow corridor that serves as a buffer today.
They existed in depth, from the tracks, throughout the the entire property.

On some of the photos, the current buffer prevents any meaningful analytical view to the south
Imagine if instead of a narrow buffer, a continuum of the pines and deciduous trees existed.
You couldn't see a thing and you certainly couldn't see the landform.

The point in posting the pictures looking north into the "virgin" forest is that they demonstrated to me that I could look, in person, into that forest and see enough definition to see ravines and small hills in the wintertime.  I can only assume that that was true of looking into the south side before there was a golf course or clearing.  It's deductive logic and not proven fact.  It can't be factually proven today, a century after the fact.  The Tillinghast stories say that Crump could see the rolling hills.  We have no factual evidence that he was wrong.  Your deductive logic says he couldn't.  My logic says he could.

Your logic is based upon your walking the tracks at 1 mph, not 60+mph, and, Crump wasn't looking North, he was looking South where the landform is different.

I continue to not understand how you can say that the "you certainly couldn't see the landform" (a rolling hill) that is currently the 17th green/18th tee.  [/size]


That's no rolling hill.
It's a very steep incline which blocks any view to the south

It is mere feet from your face and it is in your face as it rises up and recedes as you travel from the 18th green to the 17th tee.  Anybody could raise there eyes up as the sped by and see the top go up and down could they not?[/size]

That statement cements your bias.
That landform is a very steep incline, covered in trees and underbrush.
The trees and underbrush block your view of the ridge, so how could he see the top of the incline ?
And, does that view seem to present a view of land that's ideal for golf ?

It's clear that you have a conclusion that you're now trying to orchestrate a plot.

For you to declare, as you have, that this was the spot where Crump had his "chance GLIMPSE' and determined that the land was ideal for golf says it all.  That's probably the worst location from which to make his declaration.

But, you can't help yourself, rather than be objective, you just want to try to prove my premise wrong.


Or that you couldn't see the landform of the stream valley beside what became the 18th fairway.  It also was mere feet from the edge of the RR right of way.  The ravines on the other side of the track are clearly visible for hundreds of feet into the forest in winter.

After the land south was cleared and fairways installed the dense forest and thick underbrush were removed.
And, the dense pines that existed to the north are no longer there.
Here's what the land north of the tracks looked like and it's nothing like your photos.
Look at how dense that pine forest is, it's visually inpenetrable, not like today.
 


Remember, this train was moving east at 60+ mph.

When you consider that, you have to remember the obstructing landforms to the south, immediately adjancent to the tracks, especially as you approach the 17th tee.  Many of your photos were taken in a direction almost 180 degrees the opposite of the view a passenger would have sitting in his seat.

You have to present the photos or the subject of the photos in the context that Crump would have viewed the landform, not the context that you, Mike or others might choose to view the landform.

What angle do you think Crump had his gaze locked into as he sped by?  Why do you think his gaze would be locked in an oblique angle?  My experience is that my head swivels as I'm passing by objects of interest while I'm driving (dangerous, I'm sure). On a train, I'm not restricted in swiveling to take in a view.

Your bias is amazing.
So, here's Crump, sitting in his chair, facing forward, traveling at 60+ mph and all he can see to the south just before getting to the area of the 17th tee, is a very steep incline covered with trees and underbrush.  There is NOTHING to interest his view.  Now, as he reaches the area of the 17th tee and the landform no longer obstructs his view, you're now contending that this was the spot for his "chance GLIMPSE".  But, what was there ?
A SWAMP !  That certainly isn't a landform ideal for golf.  Now you have him swiveling his head beyond a 90 degree angle, but, what's there, dense woods and jungle like underbrush.  Why would he swivel his head if his 90 degree view was a swamp ?  And, is that a "Chance GLIMPSE" ?

Why don't you pinpoint precisely where he was when he had his "CHANCE GLIMPSE" so that we can dismiss your numerous other claims.

And, you have to remember, that the only reason you can see the golf course is that the dense forest and jungle like underbrush has been cleared and fairways and greens planted[/b][/size]

That's not true.  That's why I looked to the dense bush on the north side.  In winter, it was easy to see in for some distance.

Hint, the golf course isn't to the north and the views to the north DON'T HAVE THE LANDFORM/S THAT OBSTRUCT VIEWS

The photos I have and will post are representative of what I saw on both sides of the track.  
Why are you so paranoid about some fantastical agenda?

Let's just say that experience can be a great educator.
But, I do think the photos are terrific and representative, so far, of what I've observed over the years

The picture of Old Mill Road was just supposed to be informative of its current state.  

It seemed that you were stating that since the road was largely overgrown today, that it had little use circa 1912, and I thought that was disingenuous.

You seem to think badly of anybody who doesn't agree with you.

No, just those who seem to have an agenda

In conjunction with pictures I had previously posted of the other end of the road and the middle part of it, I thought it illustrated that it was never more than a single lane track.  

I'm not so sure that you can draw that conclusion.  Especially about viable widths in those days.
You can't view roads circa 1910-1912 in the context of today's six lane highways.
Nor can you view the volume of traffic in the same sense.
There's a tunnel north of San Francisco, in the area where huge gun mounts were dug into the bedrock in order to defend against a Japenese attack.  That tunnel, circa 1941 is a single lane road with a stoplight at both ends.
Are we to assume, because it was a single lane road that it didn't allow for the direct passage of important traffic ?
You can't dismiss the road from the main highway as not being a viable route into PV just because it was narrow.
If Google Maps displays it, it can't be that insignificant, even 100 years later.

Aren't you the one who is critical of silly analogies?  San Francisco, really?   [/size]

It's not the location, it's the use of a single lane road as a critical thoroughfare.
A single lane thoroughfare as late as the 1940's.



You really have that much faith in Google Maps as to indications of importance of roads they portray?  One wonders what their source material was for Old Mill Road.  It looked like it had been derelict for quite some time and part of it is on private property now.  You should try and see if your GPS will try to route you on it next time yo're there.  Worst case you might end up in the north end of Lake Lekau.[/size][/color]

You and Mike Cirba didn't mind using Google Earth when it served your purpose, but now, you attack them as unreliable.
And you don't think you're biased or agenda driven ?  ?  ?

It persuaded me that although it was possible to drive into PV in the early days, the train seemed more likely to be the main way of access.  
If you feel otherwise, feel free.

I don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to indicate.

Ask yourself, who would build a golf course that couldn't be accessed by any other conveyance than a special train/s.
Remember, not all trains made that stop.

No argument.  That probably why PV obtained a right of way on the road across Ireland's property.  Presumably East Atlantic came later and supplanted Old Mill Road.

[Bryan Izatt]

You do know the first comments below are nonsense don't you.  Who sits on a train, at the front, and looks rigidly down the tracks, never looking sideways, or at any angle other than straight down the tracks.  Have another pina colada. 

 

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees. 

From that angle they look predominant,

Bryan, that's why your photos are so significant. 
That's the view Crump would have sitting in the railroad car, traveling east at 60=mph.
That's why those photos are so relevant.
They depict the angled view a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.






Remember, those dense woods and jungle like underbrush extended into visual infinity, whereas today, those woods and underbrush are but a narrow buffer between the tracks and the golf course.  With no golf course there, nothing was visible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You do know the first comments below are nonsense don't you.  Who sits on a train, at the front, and looks rigidly down the tracks,


What part of "ANGLED VIEW" didn't you understand ?

I never stated that Crump looked straight down the tracks.
Anyone with a brain knows that's impossible.
But, the flanking trees are the normal view just as you've depicted in your photo.
It is your photo isn't it ?

never looking sideways, or at any angle other than straight down the tracks.  Have another pina colada. 

Brian, you must have missed a prior post where I described the viewing angle that a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.
I believe I used 15 to 30 to 60 degrees as the normal view angle.
Turning your head to 90 degrees and beyond isn't easy and requires effort, not the kind associated with a "chance glimpse"
When travelilng at 88 feet per second, adjacent objects tend to "fly by" at a rapid rate, not giving the viewer much time to make any in depth analysis.

That you don't understand the view one has when riding a train would seem to indicate that you don't have much experience in that area.
I've probably have over 25,000 miles of train rides that serve as the basis for my statements regarding views from speeding trains.

 

The statements below are YOUR statements, not mine.
And, you took these pictures while standing still, not speeding by at 60+mph (88 feet per second+)

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees. 

From that angle they look predominant,

Bryan, that's why your photos are so significant. 
That's the view Crump would have sitting in the railroad car, traveling east at 60=mph.
That's why those photos are so relevant.
They depict the angled view a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.






Remember, those dense woods and jungle like underbrush extended into visual infinity, whereas today, those woods and underbrush are but a narrow buffer between the tracks and the golf course.  With no golf course there, nothing was visible.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

What are all of those dense green things flanking the tracks ?

Are they Pine Trees ?

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees.  
From that angle they look predominant, but as you walk along you can see that they are intermittent and that it is predominantly deciduous trees along the tracks.  In winter the pine trees stick out more than the leafless deciduous trees when you look along the track.

Bryan, thanks for taking the time and effort to take these photos, they're great.
However, what you're forgetting about the pines, and the deciduous trees is that they didn't exist in a narrow corridor that serves as a buffer today.
They existed in depth, from the tracks, throughout the the entire property.

On some of the photos, the current buffer prevents any meaningful analytical view to the south
Imagine if instead of a narrow buffer, a continuum of the pines and deciduous trees existed.
You couldn't see a thing and you certainly couldn't see the landform.

The point in posting the pictures looking north into the "virgin" forest is that they demonstrated to me that I could look, in person, into that forest and see enough definition to see ravines and small hills in the wintertime.  I can only assume that that was true of looking into the south side before there was a golf course or clearing.  It's deductive logic and not proven fact.  It can't be factually proven today, a century after the fact.  The Tillinghast stories say that Crump could see the rolling hills.  We have no factual evidence that he was wrong.  Your deductive logic says he couldn't.  My logic says he could.

Your logic is based upon your walking the tracks at 1 mph, not 60+mph, and, Crump wasn't looking North, he was looking South where the landform is different.

With each passing color your responses get more befuddled.  Please reread and try to understand.

I continue to not understand how you can say that the "you certainly couldn't see the landform" (a rolling hill) that is currently the 17th green/18th tee.  [/size]


That's no rolling hill.
It's a very steep incline which blocks any view to the south

Are you really this obtuse?  Why do you persist in talking about 90* perpendicular to the track, when I'm talking about parallel to the track.  You do know the difference between parallel and perpendicular, don't you?  On second thought, cut back on the pina coladas.

It is mere feet from your face and it is in your face as it rises up and recedes as you travel from the 18th green to the 17th tee.  Anybody could raise there eyes up as the sped by and see the top go up and down could they not?[/size]

That statement cements your bias.
That landform is a very steep incline, covered in trees and underbrush.
The trees and underbrush block your view of the ridge, so how could he see the top of the incline ?
And, does that view seem to present a view of land that's ideal for golf ?

It's clear that you have a conclusion that you're now trying to orchestrate a plot.

For you to declare, as you have, that this was the spot where Crump had his "chance GLIMPSE' and determined that the land was ideal for golf says it all.  That's probably the worst location from which to make his declaration.

But, you can't help yourself, rather than be objective, you just want to try to prove my premise wrong.


I think the pictures prove that in winter you can see hundreds of feet into the forest, even before the clearing.  Crump could certainly have seen there was a ridge that went up and down in parallel with the tracks.

What Tillinghast said Crump saw was "a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly".  He saw hills parallel to the track.  At 15 and across 18 he could see inland enough to see other hills.  Your premise that all he could see was a blank wall of pine trees and steeply inclined banks is fatally flawed.

Or that you couldn't see the landform of the stream valley beside what became the 18th fairway.  It also was mere feet from the edge of the RR right of way.  The ravines on the other side of the track are clearly visible for hundreds of feet into the forest in winter.

After the land south was cleared and fairways installed the dense forest and thick underbrush were removed.
And, the dense pines that existed to the north are no longer there.  
Here's what the land north of the tracks looked like and it's nothing like your photos.
Look at how dense that pine forest is, it's visually inpenetrable, not like today.
 


How can you tell what the forest north of the tracks was composed of from that picture.  Speak about agendas!  You would have us believe that the forest north of the track regenerated over the last century from 100% pine to 80% deciduous.  Ridiculous.  You do also understand that the old picture is summer and my pictures are from the winter.  Speaking of being disingenuous?

Remember, this train was moving east at 60+ mph.

When you consider that, you have to remember the obstructing landforms to the south, immediately adjancent to the tracks, especially as you approach the 17th tee.  Many of your photos were taken in a direction almost 180 degrees the opposite of the view a passenger would have sitting in his seat.

You have to present the photos or the subject of the photos in the context that Crump would have viewed the landform, not the context that you, Mike or others might choose to view the landform.

What angle do you think Crump had his gaze locked into as he sped by?  Why do you think his gaze would be locked in an oblique angle?  My experience is that my head swivels as I'm passing by objects of interest while I'm driving (dangerous, I'm sure). On a train, I'm not restricted in swiveling to take in a view.

Your bias is amazing.
So, here's Crump, sitting in his chair, facing forward, traveling at 60+ mph and all he can see to the south just before getting to the area of the 17th tee, is a very steep incline covered with trees and underbrush.  There is NOTHING to interest his view.  Now, as he reaches the area of the 17th tee and the landform no longer obstructs his view, you're now contending that this was the spot for his "chance GLIMPSE".  But, what was there ?
A SWAMP !  That certainly isn't a landform ideal for golf.  Now you have him swiveling his head beyond a 90 degree angle, but, what's there, dense woods and jungle like underbrush.  Why would he swivel his head if his 90 degree view was a swamp ?  And, is that a "Chance GLIMPSE" ?

Why don't you pinpoint precisely where he was when he had his "CHANCE GLIMPSE" so that we can dismiss your numerous other claims.

This is so absurd I'm at a loss for words.  What Tillinghast said he saw was "a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly."  His glance morphed into a "rivetted" stare.  He saw hills, streams, ravines, and swamps.  Perhaps his instantaneous thought was that the streams and swamps indicated a water source and possible future ponds.  I'm guessing he had more vision that you appear to have.

And, you have to remember, that the only reason you can see the golf course is that the dense forest and jungle like underbrush has been cleared and fairways and greens planted[/b][/size]

That's not true.  That's why I looked to the dense bush on the north side.  In winter, it was easy to see in for some distance.

Hint, the golf course isn't to the north and the views to the north DON'T HAVE THE LANDFORM/S THAT OBSTRUCT VIEWS

Yes, the rolling hill landforms parallel to the tracks at the 18th tee and 14th tee certainly blocked his view into the inside of the property.  But they would have grabbed his "rivetted" attention that there were hills there, unlike other parts of south Jersey.  He did subsequently inspect the property (with others) on foot to see what was there and to confirm that it was ideal for a golf course.  Perhaps he even hunted there at some point.

The photos I have and will post are representative of what I saw on both sides of the track.  
Why are you so paranoid about some fantastical agenda?

Let's just say that experience can be a great educator.
But, I do think the photos are terrific and representative, so far, of what I've observed over the years

The picture of Old Mill Road was just supposed to be informative of its current state.  

It seemed that you were stating that since the road was largely overgrown today, that it had little use circa 1912, and I thought that was disingenuous.

You seem to think badly of anybody who doesn't agree with you.

No, just those who seem to have an agenda

You need to get over this obsession with agendas.  You do seem to think that everyone has an agenda, if they don't agree with you.

In conjunction with pictures I had previously posted of the other end of the road and the middle part of it, I thought it illustrated that it was never more than a single lane track.  

I'm not so sure that you can draw that conclusion.  Especially about viable widths in those days.
You can't view roads circa 1910-1912 in the context of today's six lane highways.
Nor can you view the volume of traffic in the same sense.
There's a tunnel north of San Francisco, in the area where huge gun mounts were dug into the bedrock in order to defend against a Japenese attack.  That tunnel, circa 1941 is a single lane road with a stoplight at both ends.
Are we to assume, because it was a single lane road that it didn't allow for the direct passage of important traffic ?
You can't dismiss the road from the main highway as not being a viable route into PV just because it was narrow.
If Google Maps displays it, it can't be that insignificant, even 100 years later.

Aren't you the one who is critical of silly analogies?  San Francisco, really?   [/size]

It's not the location, it's the use of a single lane road as a critical thoroughfare.
A single lane thoroughfare as late as the 1940's.



You really have that much faith in Google Maps as to indications of importance of roads they portray?  One wonders what their source material was for Old Mill Road.  It looked like it had been derelict for quite some time and part of it is on private property now.  You should try and see if your GPS will try to route you on it next time you're there.  Worst case you might end up in the north end of Lake Lekau.[/size][/color]

You and Mike Cirba didn't mind using Google Earth when it served your purpose, but now, you attack them as unreliable.
And you don't think you're biased or agenda driven ?  ?  ?

And, you could include David in that too.  If you had been paying attention earlier, rather than obsessing about agendas, you would know that I have questioned the accuracy of Goggle Earth too.  It was and is a tool that is useful in some ways.  It has some shortcomings, some of which I've learned over the last six months of this exercise. One of them is that they appear to portray roads that NLE.  Just an interesting piece of knowledge.  No agenda.

It persuaded me that although it was possible to drive into PV in the early days, the train seemed more likely to be the main way of access.  
If you feel otherwise, feel free.

I don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to indicate.

Ask yourself, who would build a golf course that couldn't be accessed by any other conveyance than a special train/s.
Remember, not all trains made that stop.

No argument.  That probably why PV obtained a right of way on the road across Ireland's property.  Presumably East Atlantic came later and supplanted Old Mill Road.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ooops, messed up the colors now that Patrick is stealing my color.  Now fixed.

You do know the first comments below are nonsense don't you.  Who sits on a train, at the front, and looks rigidly down the tracks,


What part of "ANGLED VIEW" didn't you understand ?

I never stated that Crump looked straight down the tracks.
Anyone with a brain knows that's impossible.
But, the flanking trees are the normal view just as you've depicted in your photo.
It is your photo isn't it ?  Please reread the previous posts.  Do you think I was telling a lie?

never looking sideways, or at any angle other than straight down the tracks.  Have another pina colada.  

Brian, you must have missed a prior post where I described the viewing angle that a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.
I believe I used 15 to 30 to 60 degrees as the normal view angle.  Indeed, I guess I missed that post.
Turning your head to 90 degrees and beyond isn't easy and requires effort, not the kind associated with a "chance glimpse"  I would think most people would turn their shoulders or bodies as well as their necks.  Have you never sat sideways in a seat?  I am incredulous that you have never looked directly sideways or even behind.  The chance glimpse lead to "rivetted" attention.  Perhaps, unlike you, he turned his shoulders and body, or even happened to be sitting sideways.

When traveling at 88 feet per second, adjacent objects tend to "fly by" at a rapid rate, not giving the viewer much time to make any in depth analysis.  

Indeed, if you focus on things that are 25 feet in front of your face.  If you focus on things that are 100 feet or further away, they hardly appear to move at all.  Here's a little experiment for you - look out the window at an object a little ways away, and then wave an envelope rapidly back and forth in front of your face.  Does the envelope materially block your view of the further object?

Who said anything about "in depth analysis"?  "Immediately it occurred to him" doesn't seem to suggest in depth analysis was part of the moment.

That you don't understand the view one has when riding a train would seem to indicate that you don't have much experience in that area.
I've probably have over 25,000 miles of train rides that serve as the basis for my statements regarding views from speeding trains.

You win the train riding derby.  My train riding is limited these days.  Is train riding materially different from car riding, except slower?  I have a lot of car riding experience, including hundreds of miles through the pine and deciduous forests of Virginia and North Carolina recently.  It's amazing how transparent forests are in winter.

 

The statements below are YOUR statements, not mine.
And, you took these pictures while standing still, not speeding by at 60+mph (88 feet per second+)

Looking along the rail tracks the green things are indeed pine trees.  

From that angle they look predominant,

Bryan, that's why your photos are so significant.  
That's the view Crump would have sitting in the railroad car, traveling east at 60=mph.
That's why those photos are so relevant.
They depict the angled view a passenger would have as he sat in his seat.






Remember, those dense woods and jungle like underbrush extended into visual infinity, whereas today, those woods and underbrush are but a narrow buffer between the tracks and the golf course.  With no golf course there, nothing was visible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are you really this obtuse?  Why do you persist in talking about 90* perpendicular to the track, when I'm talking about parallel to the track.  You do know the difference between parallel and perpendicular, don't you?  On second thought, cut back on the pina coladas.
That's why the two photos you posted are so significant.
Looking down the tracks, a passenger has the view of the trees/underbrush flanking the tracks, just like you depicted in these two photos.




I think the pictures prove that in winter you can see hundreds of feet into the forest, even before the clearing.  Crump could certainly have seen there was a ridge that went up and down in parallel with the tracks.[color]

Where ?  Pinpoint from exactly where he saw this phantom land of rolling hills and valleys ?
There are NO VALLEYS visible from the train.
The two major landforms south of the tracks block any meaningful view.
You know it and so do I so stop misrepresenting what the available view was on land covered in dense forest and jungle like underbrush.

What Tillinghast said Crump saw was "a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly".  [/size]

Tell us, from exactly what vantage point, on a train heading east, speeding at 60+mph, where Crump could have seen beautful rolling hills ?
Was the site void of trees, or as AWT and others described it, covered in dense forest and jungle like underbrush, so thick that the land was hidden from the mortal eye ?  That's what AWT claimed, so how could Crump see any landform if Tilly claimed it was impossible ?
You can't have it both ways.

He saw hills parallel to the track.  At 15 and across 18 he could see inland enough to see other hills.  Your premise that all he could see was a blank wall of pine trees and steeply inclined banks is fatally flawed.

That's not my premise, but, again, pinpoint for us, where Crump was when he took his "chance glimpse" ?

15 ?  You must be kidding, there's a double ridge that obscures 15, without trees, with trees it's doubly invisible, unless of course, you have him sitting on top of the train with a seat facing backwards.
Your lack of onsite knowledge regarding the landform at PV is causing you to make glaringly erroneous statements.

How can you tell what the forest north of the tracks was composed of from that picture.  Speak about agendas!  You would have us believe that the forest north of the track regenerated over the last century from 100% pine to 80% deciduous.  Ridiculous.  You do also understand that the old picture is summer and my pictures are from the winter.  Speaking of being disingenuous?
Take another look at the picture.
Do those guys look like they're dressed for summer ?  Looks like cold weather gear to me.
 


This is so absurd I'm at a loss for words.  What Tillinghast said he saw was "a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly."  His glance morphed into a "rivetted" stare.  He saw hills, streams, ravines, and swamps.  Perhaps his instantaneous thought was that the streams and swamps indicated a water source and possible future ponds.  I'm guessing he had more vision that you appear to have.

Would you cite for us, exactly where Tillinghast declared that Crump saw "streams", "ravines" and "swamps".
Talk about disingenuous.
So, his "chance glimpse" morphed into a "rivetted stare" ?
Again, could you point out the exact location where this occured, the exact location where he could take all of this in on a "chance glimpse" that morphed into a "rivetted stare" on a speeding eastbound train doing 60+mph.
I'll give you some latitude in terms of "exact", but, since you're such an expert with Google Earth, put an "X" on the approximate location where he had this miracle sighting.  Thanks


Yes, the rolling hill landforms parallel to the tracks at the 18th tee and 14th tee certainly blocked his view into the inside of the property.  But they would have grabbed his "rivetted" attention that there were hills there, unlike other parts of south Jersey.  He did subsequently inspect the property (with others) on foot to see what was there and to confirm that it was ideal for a golf course.  
Perhaps he even hunted there at some point.

Bryan, the landform from # 2 tee to and including the 18th green sits above the tracks.
The trees in that area would have blocked any view south.
We know that from photos taken of the area immediately west of # 2

My question to you is as follows, tell me how you can see any rolling hills, or anything as your sitting in your seat looking forward out the window, as your photos below depict ?  And remember, your photos only contain a narrow buffer of trees between the tracks and the golf course, whereas, when Crump rode the train, it was all dense forest and undergrowth.




And, you could include David in that too.  If you had been paying attention earlier, rather than obsessing about agendas, you would know that I have questioned the accuracy of Goggle Earth too.  It was and is a tool that is useful in some ways.  It has some shortcomings, some of which I've learned over the last six months of this exercise. One of them is that they appear to portray roads that NLE.  Just an interesting piece of knowledge.  No agenda.

Just because a road no longer exists, or has a greatly diminished use, doesn't mean that it wasn't a viable road 50 or 100 years ago, and that was what I felt you were trying to convey, and I think that's poor reasoning.

[JMEvensky]

Bryan and Pat,could you guys please stick to one color each?

This will make it easier for those of us scoring this pissing contest at home.

Pat,you're trailing on each judge's card--you're down to a puncher's chance.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan and Pat,could you guys please stick to one color each?

This will make it easier for those of us scoring this pissing contest at home.

Pat,you're trailing on each judge's card--you're down to a puncher's chance.

Sorry Jeff, Pat purloined my blue color a couple of posts ago and I didn't notice in my response.  I fixed that post.

Are you suggesting that I adopt rope-a-dope to stay ahead on points against the desperate puncher?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()