Subject: Re: requiem to a busted ghost<br/>
Date: Dec 26, 2002 @ 04:56<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 &lt;orc@orcoast.com&gt; (&quot;acroorca2002 &lt;orc@...&gt;&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="8448.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic8446.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="8448.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8450.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-95905082">jack<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; I am wondering how you date the old stone at AR-MO-OK as <br/>
 </span></blockquote>being no older than<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; 1840s? The coordinates given for the 1821 survey&#39;s location of <br/>
 </span></blockquote>the stone are<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; the same as those shown on both NAD27 and NAD83 <br/>
 </span></blockquote>Topozone within a fraction<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; of<br/>
&gt; a second. I agree that the present monument may not be <br/>
 </span></blockquote>exactly on the<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; correct spot, but it is very close and the old rock could be the <br/>
 </span></blockquote>original<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; one. Can you<br/>
&gt; fill me in on this?<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>ahh <br/>
very interesting<br/>
you & albert white may well have the better data here<br/>
for i confess i am surprised to learn of this 1821 survey<br/>
not to mention any marker remaining from it at modern armook<br/>
<br/>
& on closer inspection<br/>
i agree the old marker looks rough hewn enough to be that old <br/>
<br/>
so i am eager to be filled in some more too here if you would<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
all i was able to gather from bus&ss was as follows from p120 <br/>
<br/>
the north boundary of arkansas was surveyed in 1823<br/>
presumably for the first time<br/>
but this line was not accepted<br/>
<br/>
further surveys were made in 1843 & 1846<br/>
<br/>
the marks consisted of various objects including stones<br/>
& the line differed materially from that previously marked<br/>
<br/>
it was accepted & ratified in 1848<br/>
<br/>
hence my earlier supposition of the maximum possible age <br/>
of both the present tripoint position & the original rock<br/>
<br/>
i had no reason to imagine the old rock had ever moved<br/>
but only supposed the newer monument had been constructed <br/>
around it<br/>
<br/>
but you are evidently referring here <br/>
& i see now there is a reference in your book also<br/>
to some information about a possible displacement of the rock<br/>
<br/>
such an occurrence would be most peculiar but not impossible<br/>
<br/>
it could have happened if someone wanted to obliterate the <br/>
previously marked but unratified line<br/>
yet to conserve the old monument for whatever reasons<br/>
by simply moving it to the ratified 1848 position<br/>
<br/>
if so <br/>
i think we may have an unusual discovery here after all<br/>
even if it isnt what we originally set out to find</div>