Subject: slight correction Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott<br/>
Date: Oct 14, 2005 @ 20:53<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="18533.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18536.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic18516.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="18534.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18536.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1373514900">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, aletheia kallos &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; ok but be aware that ellicotts measurements <br/>
&gt; & 18th century measurements in general<br/>
&gt; do not exactly equal modern measurements<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; the discrepancy becomes clearest if you compare the<br/>
&gt; number of his mounds with the actual mileage today<br/>
&gt; there between the mississippi & the chattahoochee<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; it is something on the order of 10 percent off<br/>
&gt; i seem to recall<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>well <br/>
yes & no<br/>
as i see 381 is given as the number of the mounds<br/>
& i can estimate 395 or 400 as the number of miles<br/>
so we are looking at something more on the order of 4 or 5 percent than 10 percent<br/>
<br/>
but tho smaller<br/>
thats no less of a wild card to have to insert in your maths<br/>
whatever it is<br/>
<br/>
but just a different constant of aberration</div>