Subject: new support for old denj guesses<br/>
Date: Feb 21, 2005 @ 16:37<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="16807.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic16745.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="16815.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16817.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-74007293">excerpts from last week with new findings added<br/>
<br/>
lowell<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; Not to argue, but I would more nearly believe the<br/>
&gt; &gt; theory of a<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; bizarre projection<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; of the compound curve<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>well it seems you may not have been completely off the wall here<br/>
even if you were off the map in terms of scale<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; As we know, when they got down to describing those<br/>
&gt; &gt; arcs, they extended Hodgkins <br/>
&gt; &gt; for the first one <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>indeed<br/>
<br/>
& by plugging <br/>
the relevant delaware boundary monument data base coords <br/>
& my own paper topo coords for the courthouse spire <br/>
& best guess at the hypothetical 1701 center point<br/>
into a reliable great circle arc calculator<br/>
i have determined that the position of 1935 denj marker 1 on the <br/>
jersey shore<br/>
which precisely monuments the extension by the supreme court <br/>
of the depa arc thru denjpa & beyond to legally create denj<br/>
does substantially corroborate what you are saying here<br/>
<br/>
for both the terminal & the penultimate depa markers <br/>
& this primary denj witness mark <br/>
all produce a hypothetical 1701 radius that measures within 6 <br/>
feet of each other<br/>
<br/>
& this suggests <br/>
if it doesnt yet flatly indicate <br/>
at this scale & level of significant digitry<br/>
a fairly razor sharp extension <br/>
of the preexisting adjacent arc sweep<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; &gt; than I do the theory of reverse discrimination to<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; compensate for a past wrong.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; i did suggest the idea of possible compensation<br/>
&gt; but you seem to also be imagining <br/>
&gt; thus far<br/>
&gt; the part about reverse discrimination<br/>
&gt; as that was not part of my previous guess<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; however <br/>
&gt; since the 1701 arc as reiterated in 1892 was never<br/>
&gt; denj but only depa<br/>
&gt; the court did explicitly extend it beyond demdpa to<br/>
&gt; denj for the first time<br/>
&gt; & thus did formally add a few acres to delaware there<br/>
&gt; at the expense of new jersey that it must have<br/>
&gt; realized were more than 12 miles from the new castle<br/>
&gt; courthouse spire<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; & the acreage that was gained by new jersey at the<br/>
&gt; expense of delaware<br/>
&gt; on the other hand <br/>
&gt; by the undermeasurement of the lower & completely<br/>
&gt; original arc sweep that was also decreed at the same<br/>
&gt; time <br/>
&gt; was in fact 2 to 3 times as great as that lost by the<br/>
&gt; overmeasurement produced when the depa arc was<br/>
&gt; extended <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; so i am still not leaping to any ideas of reverse<br/>
&gt; discrimination<br/>
&gt; but if the undermeasurement was a territorial quid pro<br/>
&gt; quo<br/>
&gt; as i have speculated<br/>
&gt; then it was more likely a quid pro quibus <br/>
&gt; for we clearly dont yet have the full equation down<br/>
&gt; if there was one<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but still<br/>
&gt; some such compensatory or mutually offsetting outcome<br/>
&gt; cant yet be dismissed out of hand either<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>& now for a try at this full equation<br/>
<br/>
for if the hypothetical quid pro quo was not to be meted out in <br/>
acreage<br/>
since why would it be<br/>
but rather was to be in an undermeasurement proportional to the <br/>
simultaneously adjudged overmeasurement <br/>
aha<br/>
then we do appear to have a data match<br/>
<br/>
for again using the delaware boundary monument data base <br/>
i have found a fairly razor sharp correspondence between the <br/>
overmeasurement at denjpa & the undermeasurement at <br/>
artificial island<br/>
such that <br/>
radius major over 12 miles <br/>
roughly equals <br/>
12 miles over radius minor<br/>
<br/>
or<br/>
12point66224 over 12<br/>
roughly equals<br/>
12 over 11point32881<br/>
<br/>
both being around 106 percent<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
note also that my great circle computation of the radius of the <br/>
lower arc here differed by about 52 feet from the supreme court <br/>
specs in<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=2">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=2</a><br/>
95&invol=694<br/>
while the radii of the 3 markers of this arc vary among <br/>
themselves by 15 feet<br/>
<br/>
but my courthouse coords are only in integral degminsec<br/>
or roughly 100 foot squares to begin with<br/>
<br/>
so this is a very substantial matchup so far<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& now if we could find finer courthouse cupola coords<br/>
ha<br/>
then we might become really dangerous here too <br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; Meanwhile, you pursue Perry.<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; what do you mean<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; What I meant was simply to encourage you in the<br/>
&gt; &gt; maths that you are doing on the <br/>
&gt; &gt; various wanderings of the DEPA compound curve as<br/>
&gt; &gt; expounded by Perry.  Our <br/>
&gt; &gt; explanation could still be found there. <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; oh ok<br/>
&gt; tho i dont need to see perry again for that<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; & it will take me a while now anyway<br/>
&gt; as mentioned<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>& the above is essentially my preliminary report of this crunching<br/>
<br/>
& i must say it feels like a fairly promising guess at this point</div>