Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott
Date: Oct 16, 2005 @ 12:48
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> > & the whole flood plain is a big ifbravo
> > as you must also realize
>
>
> Yes, I know! Such an important point is worth a
> try, however.
> > btwhaha
> > the only ones i am shrugging so far are the public
> > land survey corners
>
> Don't be so sure! See below regarding my wild
> theory.
> Okay, but you've coaxed my theory out of the wild
> while its legs are still
> wobbly--so be kind with the criticism.
> I first noticed that the initial points for both thegreat thinking & certainly worth checking on the
> Public Land Survey's
> Washington Meridian in Mississippi and St. Helena
> Meridian in Louisiana seems to
> be exactly where Ellicott's strip map indicates his
> mound 24 should be. (Of
> course, Ellicott's LAMS serves as the base line for
> both meridians.) The
> Washington Meridian was established in 1803, just
> five years post-Ellicott. I
> hypothesized that the public land surveyors might
> have chosen his mound 24 as
> their initial point. Next, I noted that the range
> line 24 miles west of these
> principal meridians is at the valley wall, the
> supposed location of Ellicott's
> point D. Since every fourth range line should be a
> guide meridian, this one
> would be of above average importance, and it could
> be the reason that mound 24
> was chosen as the initial point (if indeed it was).
> I have an inquiry out now to the Principal Meridianwow thats our friend john
> Project (
> www.pmproject.org ). I hope that the reference
> described on that site at
> www.pmproject.org/CAlbertWhite.htm will provide
> solid proof one way or the other
> whether the public land survey and Ellicott are in
> sync. I will let you know
> when I hear from the PMP.