yikes
what makes yall think we are lost
in anything
but anyway
please bust anything you know is lost or wrong
directly
no need to strut or pussyfoot around first
whichever it is
we are seeking the best available truth here on principle
& if you can indeed advance our try for true bcidwa
or can even just tell us how we can
or can tell us how anyone can
why are yall standing on the ceremony of waiting for a request
yikes
also
or perhaps first
we already know there is a difference between what pros can do
& what we ourselves have so far been able to do
but what do you mean by sufficient
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I hope y'all realize that while you're lost in all these maths, any
competent
> surveyor with a transit and a rod man could locate BCIDWA
with sufficient
> accuracy on the line-of-sight CAUS in less than a half-hour
from CAUS monument
> 195 (which is only about 900 feet away) even if neither
monuments 194 nor 195
> are visible from BCIDWA.
>
> I can explain how on request.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 2:10 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: special to ron & dave
>
>
> now i am getting really out of order here doc
> not only because you are still catching up
> but also because we have not yet established whether there is
> even any hope of obtaining a real sight line from caus marker
> 194 to 195 with the 1909 idwa marker & environs
simultaneously
> in view
>
> which
> i have to agree
> with i think dave who suggested it
> doesnt seem terribly likely
> ever
> in view of all we do know about the distances & relative
> elevations & roughness of the clearcut
>
> so forgive me for racing ahead to this delicious presumption
> that we do indeed already have all she ever wrote to legally
> define or mark this point
> & that we can proceed on the basis of the published
geocoords
> alone
>
> but this already seems to me to be our leading premise &
hope
>
> & so
> based only on what we do have
> &
> solely to advance the analysis
> foreclosing on the hope of better data
> i think we can proceed from merely guessing the parameters &
> probabilities to actually mediating & reducing the caus
centisec
> ribbon down to its precise midpoint along the idwa meridian
>
> for i think caus is presumptively a true line rather than a ribbon
>
> & the only remaining question then in this scenario of no
longer
> guessing but concluding
> it seems to me
> is whether it would be correct to continue to rationalize the
> ambiguity of the plaque coords as a vegas betting line
>
> or to leave them as 2 distinct & unresolved probabilities
>
> or to foreclose on one of them in favor of the other
>
>
> & despite all the fun it occasioned
> i would gladly shelve the vegas line til
> & if ever
> we get the sight line that would trump & test the computations
&
> settle any bets
>
>
> & to the same end
> i recall dave has offered some hope of communicating with the
> surveyor who created & stamped these messy coords in the
first
> place
>
>
> so pending only that loose end & to sum up
> it still seems to me as it did in message 15332
> except moreso now
> that
> measured in inches due north of the 1909 disk center
> the major probability for true bcidwa stands at 18 point 85129
> & its minor probability stands at 18 point 24318
> & unless & until dave or someone else learns which of them is
> true
> their weighted probability also still stands at 18 point 82696
>
> all significant digits too i think
>
> but far more importantly
> the target hole has been reduced from over a foot to less than
5
> eighths of an inch
>
> & most happily
> & regardless of any subsequent outcome
> a human fingertip could now cover all 3 of these putative
> positions at once
>
> so we both still do & dont any longer have somewhere to go in
> this case depending only on personal taste for
punctiliousness
>
> for that is indeed how close it seems to me we now are to the
> truest available bcidwa
>
> or would you or someone disagree
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > bravissimos maestro
> > we are counting on you
> >
> > & of course your point500 outshoots my point508
> > as your finer instruments prove
> > because mine were farther out of touch with the true geoid
> >
> > very nice
> >
> > & so
> > at the standard quadrisignificant conversion rate of
point3048
> > i now get my foot enhanced by only as much as
> > point0135061242
> >
> > now
> > if only 5 of those 9 working digits are authentic & significant
> > as i believe
> > & if they are also already at the limit of human perception
> > as i also believe
> > then my previous computations completely hold up for now
as
> > the limit of what can be known of true bcidwa without an
> > intermonumental sight line
> >
> > but ironically all this hard won precision is idle for now
> because
> > we are still shooting at a centisec target here that is more
than
> a
> > foot wide
> >
> > hopefully tho
> > it will actually be useful to an aspiring punctoscopist
somehow
> > somewhere some day
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McConnell"
> > <rcmcc@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > "aletheiak" says,
> > > "...the length of a minute of latitude at
> > > the 49th parallel as 1853meters plus 508mm
> > > & borrowing directly ...
> > > <http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/Grid_1deg.htm>
> > > i have it as 1853meters plus 500mm
> > > so which is truer
> > > & how many digits are reliable in any case?"
> > >
> > > Vincenty & Sodano = 1853.496 m
> > > USCG POSAID2 = 1853.5016 m
> > > Both round to 1853.50m
> > >
> > > We just returned home. I'll try to study
> > > the rest of the message later after
> > > taking care of chores.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ron McC.
> > > w2iol@a...
> > >
> > > Ronald C. McConnell, PhD
> > >
> > > WGS-84: N 40º 46' 57.6" +/-0.1"
> > > W 74º 41' 22.1" +/-0.1"
> > > FN20ps.77GU31 +/-
> > > V +5058.3438 H +1504.2531
> > >
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~rcmcc
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links