Subject: lamaya etc conclusion was Re: fresh algatn report by new players on a 7 point roll<br/>
Date: Dec 10, 2004 @ 20:44<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="16249.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16253.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic16224.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="16251.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16253.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-791784706">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; <br/>
&lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; wrote:<br/>
 <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; B and C.  It did not cross my mind from your earlier writings that <br/>
 </span></blockquote>you thought initially that the &quot;Initial Monument&quot; might have been <br/>
Atwood&#39;s initial point.  I though that you understood it to be <br/>
Thompson&#39;s, and that&#39;s why neither of us understood the other&#39;s <br/>
point.  Such are the difficulties of exploring deeply esoteric issues <br/>
by e-mail.  In person, the failure to communicate would have lasted <br/>
twenty seconds, not two or three days.<br/>
<br/>
i know & appreciate that & dont really think you are so silly<br/>
<br/>
plus i actually wrote an earlier draft that did spell all this out <br/>
explicitly but which was wiped out by an ornery computer before i <br/>
could post it & which i then couldnt type fast enough to include in <br/>
the redraft before the library closed<br/>
  <br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; E and F.  My statements that Atwood&#39;s 1918 survey was done north-to-<br/>
 </span></blockquote>south are based on deduction from the statutes.  The 1983 statutory <br/>
description of the boundary of La Paz County speaks of the point <br/>
(singular) where both the 1908 Mojave-Yavapai survey of 113°20&#39; and <br/>
Atwood&#39;s 1918 survey of 113°20&#39; intersect the main channel of the <br/>
Santa Maria River.  <br/>
<br/>
true <br/>
& thanx for sourcing this<br/>
but it is a huge presumption that the writers actually knew whereof <br/>
they spoke<br/>
& another huge presumption that such a point could actually be <br/>
identified with precision from original or even subsequent <br/>
monumentation<br/>
<br/>
it could certainly be approximated sufficiently for all practical <br/>
purposes either from the extant monumental sight line <br/>
or even from just the great circle arc between the nearest monuments <br/>
north & south of the santa maria if they are not intervisible<br/>
since there is as yet no evidence that they are<br/>
but thats still not the same thing as ascertaining that the santa <br/>
maria was the initial monument point of atwood 1918<br/>
<br/>
& your ensuing reasoning is based on these presumptions<br/>
<br/>
nor is your ensuing miracle so miraculous if you simply allow atwood <br/>
in 1918 the trial procedures you are conjecturing for thompson in 1924<br/>
<br/>
for atwood could easily have surveyed south from the santa maria to <br/>
lat34 before setting the initial monument there<br/>
since that was the most important tricounty point he had to establish<br/>
<br/>
& then could have surveyed south again to mapiyu <br/>
the only other new tricounty point on his route<br/>
nay the only other new point of major importance<br/>
before joining these 2 maricopa termini with the 51 intervening rocks<br/>
which are the only known monuments on his line today<br/>
& which are numbered in northbound sequence<br/>
<br/>
for there is no need to suppose a maya lawsuit to account for these<br/>
as you do in a later message & ask me to search for<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;If Atwood had begun on MXUS (or anywhere else) to survey the <br/>
 </span></blockquote>specified parallel, it would have been a miracle for him to have <br/>
precisely hit the south terminus of the 1908 survey on the Santa <br/>
Maria River when he was under not statutory compulsion to do so.  <br/>
Thus, it is a reasonable deduction that Atwood accepted the <br/>
predetermined southern terminus of the 1908 survey as accurate <br/>
(perhaps even having been a participant himself, but that&#39;s pure <br/>
speculation) and headed south.  There was almost certainly no other <br/>
predetermined point on 113°20&#39; at MXUS or elsewhere until Atwood was <br/>
contracted to establish some 160 miles of it between the Santa Maria <br/>
River and MXUS.<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; Your county formation chronology does indicate that Maricopa and <br/>
 </span></blockquote>Yavapai were formed in 1871, but the statutory description of their <br/>
common boundary includes (as a terminus of one of the geodesics that <br/>
Thompson surveyed in 1924) a point on the Agua Fria River &quot;two miles <br/>
southerly and below the place where the residence of J. W. Swilling <br/>
stood on January 31, 1877.&quot;  From this, we know that some revision of <br/>
the statutory delimitation was done on or after the 1877 date.  It is <br/>
fairly clear, though, that the undemarcated Maricopa Yavapai boundary <br/>
was specified at the 34th parallel prior to Atwood&#39;s 1918 survey.  <br/>
While it is conceivable that Atwood could have taken a stab at its <br/>
location as he worked southward on his own line, such point is not <br/>
likely to have been his actual initial point.<br/>
<br/>
more than conceivable i would say<br/>
<br/>
indeed quite reasonable to nail ones tripoints first <br/>
<br/>
but maybe i need to take a look at mapiyu <br/>
&or lama monument 1 if different <br/>
in order to validate this view<br/>
or you a look at lamoya &or piyumex to validate your view<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
what fun</div>