Not to argue, but I would more nearly believe the theory of a bizarre projection
of the compound curve than I do the theory of reverse discrimination to
compensate for a past wrong.
I'm not entirely certain that Schenck carefully read my inquiry. It almost
seems that he thought I was inquiring about the varying radii of DEPA. Perhaps
he wrote about DEPA because he didn't know much about the downriver arc within
DENJ.
I suspect that reports of Special Masters are part of the public record, but
that they are just not on-line due to their voluminosity. I will try to find
out how available they are.
Meanwhile, you pursue Perry.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Sandy Schenck Speaks!
>
> nice going
>
> & please look for several specific comments inserted
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
>
>> Below is the reply sent early this morning by Mr.
>> William S. Schenck of the
>> Delaware Geological Survey in answer to my inquiry
>> regarding the
>> under-measurement of the twelve-mile arc at its
>> lower crossing of the Delaware
>> River.
>>
>> The figure from the Perry article to which he refers
>> can be found at this direct
>> link:
>> http://www.udel.edu/dgs/graphics/IS06FIG2.jpg .
>
> great
> & now everyone can see what a
> must read
> this article is
> for any of these arc questions
>
> you can even see the 180th rock position at point e
> & the 3 distinct arc center points
> as well as the several distinct arc swipes
>
>> The answer as a whole is not very helpful, but it is
>> suggestive that the
>> under-measurement is a product of some bizarre
>> projection of the DEPA compound
>> curve with all of its vicissitudes.
>
> yikes
> i dont believe that for a moment
> do you
> nor am i even sure he suggests it
>
> but perhaps
> just perhaps
> & this is a similar but new thought
> the 1935 undermeasurement could have been created or
> justified as a compensation to new jersey for the
> overmeasurement in 1701
>
>> I am still of
>> the opinion that the
>> rationale will be found in the report of the Special
>> Master.
>
> yes great
> & glad to learn you agree here
> but how do we find it
> especially as all this has probably been locked up &
> the key thrown away so nobody can even hope to violate
> the injunction & challenge the judgment
>
>> Lowell G. McManus
>> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William S. Schenck"
>> To: "Lowell G. McManus"
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:38 AM
>> Subject: RE: 12-mile circle in Delaware River
>>
>>
>> > Mr McManus
>> >
>> > I know just enough about the history of the
>> Delaware - Pennsylvania 12-Mile
>> > Circular Boundary to make me dangerous. I do know
>> that the boundary is
>> > composed of 2 compound curves, not one arc of a
>> 12-mile circle. The radius
>> > of both curves constantly increases from west to
>> east.
>
> yikes
> this is news to me as well as contrary to perry
> who gives a constant & distinct radius for each of the
> 2 distinct depa curves
>
>> The reason for the
>> > compound curves is that the 1701 survey of the
>> line had problems with their
>> > chains getting worn and longer and longer as they
>> progresses from west to
>> > east. At DE-PA #10 they made a correction and you
>> can actually see that is
>> > the line today.
>
> hmm
> there may be some truth to this statement
> & i will suspend judgment til i do see it
> but i surmise he is confusing several things here
>
> & i am also in the process of checking the distance of
> all the depa arc stones from the old new castle county
> courthouse spire
> so we should soon be able to see just how true the
> statement really is
>
> in the meantime however
> perry says & shows in another diagram how it was
> graham in 1850 who caused the foreshortening of the
> western half of the depa arc that originally extended
> from demdpa to point e in the above diagram
> down to the present depa arc terminus about a mile
> east of demdpa
>
> end inserts
>
>> > The best reference I can direct you to is an
>> article that appeared in the
>> > journal of Civil Engineering. The reference for
>> it is:
>> >
>> > Perry L., 1934, The circular boundary of Delaware,
>> Civil Engineering: v. 4,
>> > no. 11, p. 576-580.
>> >
>> > You can see one of the figures from that article
>> in my information pamphlet
>> > about Delaware's boundaries on our web site at
>> >
>>
> http://www.udel.edu/dgs/Publications/pubsonline/info6.html
>> >
>> > That's about all I know.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > William Schenck
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Lowell G. McManus
>> >> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:20 PM
>> >> To: William S. Schenck
>> >> Subject: 12-mile circle in Delaware River
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Schenck,
>> >>
>> >> I am a researcher into the state and
>> international boundaries
>> >> of the USA. I have a good understanding of the
>> many
>> >> complexities of Delaware's boundaries, but there
>> is one that
>> >> has eluded me thus far. I hope that you can
>> point me in the
>> >> right direction.
>> >>
>> >> In its 1935 decree in New Jersey v. Delaware (295
>> U.S. 694),
>> >> the United States Supreme Court specified a
>> radius of
>> >> "59,764.2 feet" (about 11.32 miles) for that
>> short
>> >> southeastern arc of the "twelve-mile circle"
>> across
>> >> Artificial Island in the Delaware River.
>> >>
>> >> Why does the decreed radius deviate from the
>> twelve miles
>> >> specified throughout the history of the boundary?
>> >>
>> >> I thank you very much.
>> >>
>> >> Lowell G. McManus
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>