--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
> I'm trying to find the time to delve into the legal
> history of this short arc
fantastic
& when you can
please read or reread first of all that the center
point of the undermeasured 1934 arc is stated in the
same 1935 supreme court document below that gives the
measurement itself
& this center point is
the same new castle county courthouse spire that was
used for most of the several other arc segment radii
so your possible alternative explanation to my
possible explanation here below is actually impossible
also feast your eyes on these pre1934 topos
http://historical.maptech.com/getImage.cfm?fname=smyr31ne.jpg&state=DE
especially
& also
http://historical.maptech.com/getImage.cfm?fname=wlmt06se.jpg&state=DE
which confirm my surmise about the location of the
natural left bank before artificial island was added
&
show an arc of much longer radius too
indeed this earlier depiction of the arc appears to
place it in substantially the correct position
all of which helps visualize my possible explanation
still standing tall & solo here below
even if still only possible
& also underscores how egregious if not outrageous the
foreshortening of the arc radius must have seemed at
least to some observers at the time
so i gotta figure that must have left at least a trace
somewhere
like say in the local newspapers when the supreme
court decisions were announced
& i also think your mr schenck here would be the one
to begin to both question & inform about all this
for yes i do know about him & this site of his & its
179 official delaware border rocks etc etc
if he is the same schenck i once tried to tell about
the 180th one i had also found
as described in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/12253
but he never responded & never added it to his data
set either
so i dont know what to make of him or it
perhaps you would like to try him out fresh tho
he could be helpful after all
> segment in an effort to understand its apparent
> undermeasurement, but in the
> meantime, I've found this:
>
> The 2003 Annual Report to the Governor on the
> "Delaware Spatial Data Framework"
> by "The Delaware Spatial Data Implementation Team"
> [I-Team] contained the
> following two paragraphs:
> _____
>
> > In 2003, the USGS and the Delaware Geological
> Survey worked together to create
> > a new, highly accurate state boundary data set.
> This boundary has been
> > mathematically derived to match the locations of
> the 179 historic monuments
> > that mark portions of the actual state boundary.
> This project has also
> > involved mapping the portion of the boundary that
> follows the 1934 mean low
> > water line of the New Jersey side of the Delaware
> River within the 12-mile
> > circle that partially delineates the northern part
> of the state.
>
> > This project has highlighted some potential
> boundary issues that are now under
> > legal review. Settling the questions raised by
> this project will be a task of
> > the I-Team in 2004. As part of this process, the
> I-Team in 2004 will consider
> > approving a "state outline" data set to show the
> shorelines of the river, bay
> > and ocean that people tend to think of when they
> think of the shape of
> > Delaware.
> _____
>
> In this regard, also see the PFD at
> http://tinyurl.com/3u8jh . This is a
> three-page summary of a February 2004 meeting held
> by the Delaware Geographic
> Data Committee. The topic "Delaware Boundary Data
> Set" beginning on page 2
> summarizes a presentation by Sandy Schenck (which is
> said to be attached to the
> original document, but is not attached to the PDF).
> The Schenck presentation
> supposedly covers the history of the surveys of each
> of the segments of the
> Delaware boundary, the recent work by the USGS, and
> a descriptive error recently
> discovered in the 1934 boundary on the left bank of
> the Delaware River. (I do
> not suggest that this error is the apparent
> undermeasurement of the arc.) The
> non-attached Schenck presentation might answer our
> questions if it could be
> obtained.
>
> Mike, perhaps you know this, but there is an on-line
> compilation of the
> locations of and directions to each of the many
> Delaware boundary monuments and
> reference monuments. It is accessed from
> http://www.rdms.udel.edu/dgs/boundaryMap.html .
> (This includes DENJ Monument
> Number 6 that you could not recover in the nuclear
> dump.)
>
> As for the 1934 apparent undermeasurement of the
> 12-mile arc segment of DENJ, is
> it possible that it is not an undermeasurement at
> all, but an accurate
> twelve-mile measurement from a different center
> point in or about New Castle?
> If this is the case, it begs the question of why
> there would be a different
> center point. Your message below gives one possible
> explanation.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 6:42 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] possible explanation for
> undermeasurement of 12mile arc
>
>
>
> --- aletheiak <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > interestingly
> > > this lesser bit of rive gauche delaware was not
> > the direct result
> > of
> > > such an avulsion as killcohook was
> > >
> > > nor could accretion ever create any left bank
> > delaware either
> > >
> > > rather it was merely an accident of the belated
> > backswing
> > > following the 1934 supreme court decision
> > > of the same 12mile new castle arc that has
> caused
> > delaware
> > to
> > > have a round top since 1683
> > >
> > > & it is precisely upon this lesser of the 2 dry
> > denj segments
> > that
> > > denj shifts from the jersey shore to midchannel
> > > along this recent sequel to that ancient arc
> > > cutting off a preexisting but artificial
> > protruding tongue of land
> > >
> > > a very funny thing
> > > & it all seems to have just happened by chance
> > >
> > > yet this sweep of 12mile arc was in fact badly
> > mismeasured
> > >
> > > it would be a good topic in itself for further
> > research
> >
> >
> > & here is some already
> >
> > in item 4 of
> >
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=2
> > 95&invol=694
> > the 7th numbered bound confirms my discovery
> > made long ago by direct measurement of the paper
> > topos
> > that the actual radius of this 1934 aftersweep of
> > the original
> > 12mile new castle arc
> > measures not 12 miles at all
> > but only some 59764 feet
> > or in other words 11 miles & about 1684 feet
> > & is thus for some as yet unexplained reason about
> > 3596 feet
> > too short
> >
> > seeking an explanation in the original judgment of
> > 1934 that
> > ordered the survey that made the measurement
> >
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=2
> > 91&invol=361
> > i found none
> > tho there is incidentally an awfully interesting
> > legal discussion
> > there of the tension that has historically existed
> > between the
> > midriver & thalweg principles
> > dating all the way back to freakin tacitus
> >
> > but my original questions remain
> >
> > how could such a flagrant mistake have been made
> in
> > the first
> > place
> > & how could it then have been accepted by the
> > special master &
> > ultimately by the supreme court at large
> > all of whom must have known full well there are
> 5280
> > feet in a
> > mile
> >
> > did everyone just assume & not bother to check the
> > arithmetic
> >
> > other markers i have seen in this series
> > especially number 1
> > appear to have been installed so haphazardly that
> > there is a real
> > question in my mind about the basic competency &
> > diligence of
> > the surveyors
> > & indeed of everyone involved
> >
> >
> > but that is as far as i have been able to take it
> so
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250