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