> That seems like a lot of extra work to do just to find 0.02'
Actually, the difference between the center of the bronze tablet in the top and the center of the base of the monument was 0.31 ft. Restoring disturbed monuments is always good practice, I think. I just left that one for someone else to enjoy straightening up.
Kent, I can 'subside' with your answer.
😉
"Mr. Monument, how do you feel about being 0.38' off?"
"I am a failure as a monument, I had such a promising begining, I was an offensive lineman on Monument High School's football team being a big hunk of concrete that I am. All the 3/8" rebar cheerleaders threw themselves at me; now I couldn't get a date with a southern pine guard stake."
"You obviously love your Mother and hate your Father."
> Actually, the difference between the center of the bronze tablet in the top and the center of the base of the monument was 0.31 ft. Restoring disturbed monuments is always good practice, I think. I just left that one for someone else to enjoy straightening up.
0.31'? Well, that cap sure looks centered on the top to me, and a quickie sketch using an assumed 12" top and a 0.3' tilt does not add up to 0.3'.
I think it is swinging at the bottom. So the top would move more than a nominal amount.
Another Disturbed Monument - Dave
So you think there is tilt + rotation?
Another Disturbed Monument - Dave
I think the soil is failing at the bottom and the monument sticks up at least a few feet so it is hinging at least at ground level and possibly deeper.
> I think it is swinging at the bottom. So the top would move more than a nominal amount.
Yes, I don't think that Paul read the beginning of the thread with the diagram showing the difference between the top and the base and the photos. :>
> Yes, I don't think that Paul read the beginning of the thread with the diagram showing the difference between the top and the base and the photos. :>
I looked at the diagram and read the post Kent. I just do not see how a 0.3' drop could displace that punch by 0.31', unless there is a rotation you did not mention.
From the looks of the lines in your diagram there does not seem to be any major rotation involved.
I think in my quickie dickie sketch the 0.3' tilt I show on the top of the base is quite a bit more than it actually is at that point.
> I looked at the diagram and read the post Kent. I just do not see how a 0.3' drop could displace that punch by 0.31', unless there is a rotation you did not mention.
Yes, there is absolutely no way that the photos themselves show a tilting monument. :>
> Yes, there is absolutely no way that the photos themselves show a tilting monument. :>
It's tilted, that's plain to see. I just cannot see how you get a 0.31' displacement with such a small tilt amount Kent. If there was also rotation, well that would account for that amount but you never mentioned there was any.
> It's tilted, that's plain to see. I just cannot see how you get a 0.31' displacement with such a small tilt amount Kent.
Okay, you can see it's tilted and you're trying to figure out whether it was rotated. Is that the story?
> Okay, you can see it's tilted and you're trying to figure out whether it was rotated. Is that the story?
No. You never mentioned a rotation until now Kent. Locating the base like you did will not solve a rotation problem without a reference line.
PS Was the fence your reference line?
> No. You never mentioned a rotation until now Kent.
Well, either you haven't read this thread or don't understand that an intact monument that is tilted off plumb has obviously rotated off plumb. I really don't know how to make this extremely elementary point in simpler languge. Perhaps someone else has the patience to explain it to you.
> Well, either you haven't read this thread or don't understand that an intact monument that is tilted off plumb has obviously rotated off plumb. I really don't know how to make this extremely elementary point in simpler languge. Perhaps someone else has the patience to explain it to you.
Maybe you should reconsider what you have done Kent
> Maybe you should reconsider what you have done Kent
🙂
Maybe the fence builder used a track hoe to scoop up the monument and "save it" while he installed the chain link fence around the cemetery.
Then just dropped it back into the location where he two-taped its original position to be from a couple of headstones.
🙂
If you're lucky he two taped it. More likely he said to the backhoe operator "it was about here."
> Maybe the fence builder used a track hoe to scoop up the monument and "save it" while he installed the chain link fence around the cemetery.
>
> Then just dropped it back into the location where he two-taped its original position to be from a couple of headstones.
>
That monument is probably an object lesson in massive monuments not necessarily being more stable than others. The undermining by ants is my favorite theory at the moment, but it's also possible, I suppose, that an unmarked grave at the edge of the cemetery near the fence was a factor in the displacement of that monument. It would have been close enough to the Old San Antonio Road that I think it's probably unlikely, but it isn't unknown in the case of old cemeteries for there to be more burials than grave markers.
If you look at the photo with the listing grave monuments in the background, it tends to suggest that whatever affected the county line monument also is at work nearby. That's what makes me think of something common like ants.