--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- 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
oops again & yikes too
since this point
or both these points if they are different
are in the middle of the luke afb bombing & gunnery range
so we may never recover this possibly most crucial mayu marker 1
instead the best plan now is to check any other mayu or lama rock for
whatever clues it gives about who placed them all & when
& of these
mayu numbers 7 9 15
& lama numbers 38 47 48
look easiest to get at
so stay tuned for more
& as for whether we are ever going to solve these mysteries
or whether we are ever going to get there
so to say
or get anywhere for that matter
etc
i dont think any of that really matters
as the journey is all
> > in order to validate this view
> > or you a look at lamoya &or piyumex to validate your view
> >
> >
> > what fun