Subject: Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott
Date: Oct 19, 2005 @ 20:40
Author: aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> >> > who knowswell i certainly dont know yet either
> >> > we may even get another multipoint out of such a
> >> nice
> >> > convergency
> >>
> >> We might, indeed! If there is conjunction between
> >> Ellicott and the public land
> >> survey, the only candidates for tripoints upon
> >> Ellicott mounds would be the
> >> intersections of Mississippi county lines with LAMS.
> >> This is explained in the
> >> next insertion.
> >
> > i understand
> > & anticipated or followed your entire explanation
> > without surprise or even a hiccup
> > except i dont see why the intersections or junctions
> > of county lines with the ellicott line aka public land
> > baseline eastward of lams are not also tripoint
> > candidates
> > in mississippi at least
> > if not alabama too
> > tho i do understand why not louisiana or florida
> >
> > if you had said & or mean
> > the only candidates for tripoints upon ellicott mounds
> > on the lams line would be the junctions of mississippi
> > county lines with the lams line
> > i would have understood & agreed immediately
>
>
> I referred only to LAMS and should have said so. I had not studied the line
> east of the Pearl River enough to have an opinion. Of course, that part of
> Mississippi east of the Pearl is within the purview of the St. Stephens
> Meridian. I have just examined the point where Ellicott's line crosses the
> Pearl on TerraServer at http://tinyurl.com/by92a . The survey east of the Pearl
> seems to be profoundly unorthodox! The sections north of the St. Stephens Base
> Line have only a bit more than half of the north-south extent that they should!
> I can't explain why. Who knows whether or not their lines' junctions with the
> base line are intended to be at precise one-mile intervals?