Dave Karoly, post: 413465, member: 94 wrote: I failed to post the link which my post referred to somehow:
http://www.glo.texas.gov/ncu/SCANDOCS/archives_webfiles/arcmaps/webfiles/arcmaps/pdfs/4/9/49546.pdf
That's wierd that B.C. Tharp's manuscript of his article that appeared in Southwestern Historical Quarterly in 1953 got filed in the GLO in 1976 and as a Rolled Sketch rather than a Sketch File.
BTW, here's a link to some information about Dr. Tharp, his career, and his connections:
https://w3.biosci.utexas.edu/prc/pdfs/Graham-Lundellia13.pdf
Kent McMillan, post: 413470, member: 3 wrote: That's wierd that B.C. Tharp's manuscript of his article that appeared in Southwestern Historical Quarterly in 1953 got filed in the GLO in 1976 and as a Rolled Sketch rather than a Sketch File.
BTW, here's a link to some information about Dr. Tharp, his career, and his connections:
https://w3.biosci.utexas.edu/prc/pdfs/Graham-Lundellia13.pdf
maybe the GLO hired one of those Travis County microfiche dudes. that was a banner era for rolling join- i mean "recording data" in the travis county courthouse.
Dave Karoly, post: 422368, member: 94 wrote: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/local/2017/04/05/blm-admits-incorrect-methodology-used-surveys/100069946/
That's almost as rare as my wife admitting I was right about something....just doesn't happen...
I can imagine that some folks be dreamin' about chasin' carpet baggers and revenuers back across the Red River.
:manhole:
paden cash, post: 422376, member: 20 wrote: That's almost as rare as my wife admitting I was right about something....just doesn't happen...
Zinke
The BLM admitted to using the wrong Survey method.
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/local/2017/04/05/blm-admits-incorrect-methodology-used-surveys/100069946/
Scott Ellis, post: 422413, member: 7154 wrote: The BLM admitted to using the wrong Survey method.
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/local/2017/04/05/blm-admits-incorrect-methodology-used-surveys/100069946/
As I have said from the beginning, this is in my opinion a Blatant Fraudulent land grab by the BLM. It has nothing to do with bad methodology. And Several Someones deserve Several years as felonious guests of the TDOC(Texas Department of Corrections) AKA the Texas Prison System.
Stephen Johnson, post: 422418, member: 53 wrote: As I have said from the beginning, this is in my opinion a Blatant Fraudulent land grab by the BLM. It has nothing to do with bad methodology. And Several Someones deserve Several years as felonious guests of the TDOC(Texas Department of Corrections) AKA the Texas Prison System.
Texas "Crime and Punishment":
[MEDIA=youtube]NRmmIVnjqfQ[/MEDIA]
It appears from the Field Notes that they recovered/reestablished the gradient boundary where Stiles left it in the 1920s.
The notes don't directly state any reason why they merely reestablished Stiles' location without regard to movement of the river but reading between the lines it seems like they are saying that where Stiles established the boundary was ruled to be the boundary by the US Supreme Court therefore the boundary was not mobile after the US Supreme Court Judgment was entered.
Stephen Johnson, post: 422418, member: 53 wrote: As I have said from the beginning, this is in my opinion a Blatant Fraudulent land grab by the BLM. It has nothing to do with bad methodology. And Several Someones deserve Several years as felonious guests of the TDOC(Texas Department of Corrections) AKA the Texas Prison System.
I think that is overstating the case. The gradient boundary, which was invented by a Texan, is a considerable distance south of the flowing water (in low flow events).
The BLM should have established the actual gradient boundary which is a huge effort involving a lot of disciplines beyond just Surveyors. It was incorrect to only reestablish Stiles' location. A true location of the boundary would likely not please Texans. The BLM New Mexico office produced a document discussing surveying the gradient boundary (referenced in the field notes on one of the surveys) and maybe that contains a legal justification for their method. I asked for a copy but they ignored me probably because of the ongoing litigation. If I was an interested Texan then I would put in a FOIA request for that document.
From an earlier post by me:
Found it near the bottom of Page 4 of the Field Notes:
"On January 14, 2005, the Cadastral Survey Team of the New Mexico State Office prepared a "REPORT ON THE BOUNDARY ISSUES ALONG THE RED RIVER IN RANGES 12 THROUGH 15 WEST, OF THE INDIAN MERIDIAN, IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA", which provided numerous Supreme Court cites and outlined the surveying methodology that would be used on that stretch of the Red River."
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/fieldnote/page.aspx?viewer=html&viewerWindow=true&viewerWidth=1356&viewerHeight=698&imageFile=FNVOK0242OK0024205000.JP2&dm_id=106193&s_dm_id=77545&fn_idx=5&apos ;"> https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/...05000.JP2&dm_id=106193&s_dm_id=77545&fn_idx=5
T4S, R14W, Indian Meridian (Oklahoma)
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=77545&sid=dbedtbr2.0hn
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=77545&sid=dbedtbr2.0hn&apos ;">Dependent Resurvey 2/28/2006 OK Indian 004.0S - 014.0W Subdivisional, Sections Tillman https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/fieldnote/default.aspx?dm_id=106193&s_dm_id=77545&sid=dbedtbr2.0hn&apos ;">00242
paden cash, post: 422420, member: 20 wrote: Texas "Crime and Punishment":
[MEDIA=youtube]NRmmIVnjqfQ[/MEDIA]
Yes prolifers are obsessed with killing and guns and killing. Weird I know.
Dave Karoly, post: 422435, member: 94 wrote: It appears from the Field Notes that they recovered/reestablished the gradient boundary where Stiles left it in the 1920s.
The notes don't directly state any reason why they merely reestablished Stiles' location without regard to movement of the river but reading between the lines it seems like they are saying that where Stiles established the boundary was ruled to be the boundary by the US Supreme Court therefore the boundary was not mobile after the US Supreme Court Judgment was entered.
I believe you're correct.
Although I generally have little faith in surveys that attempt rigid compliance with bureaucratic manure, and will generally approach a modern BLM resurvey with a truckload of caution; I don't think the surveyors in this case were doing anything except what they were told to do. The results of this "resurvey" were known well before the boots hit the ground.
I'm glad someone has finally admitted the prescribed method really doesn't work.
Scott Ellis, post: 422475, member: 7154 wrote: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-suspension-of-blm-red-river-surveys-is-a-win-for-texas#.WOfQFarYPpc.facebook
One of the Surveyors I'm following is B.N. Paxton, Butte County Surveyor (California) in the 1920s and 1930s.
To give you all some perspective as to the longevity of the Oklahoma-Texas-Red River boundary gnat-f%ck, here's an interesting article concerning the affair.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/drawing-the-line/
Note the commission mentioned in the article was put together by the Texas Governor at that time, George W. Bush. The article practically could have been written a month ago, but it is a twenty year old article. All this work and sweat and worry over an 1821 boundary that was penned as "the south bank of the Red River". You can thank the attorneys of record for the 196 year old dispute.
"..and the beat goes on...." as Sonny and his skinny wife once sang.
Dave Karoly, post: 422476, member: 94 wrote: One of the Surveyors I'm following is B.N. Paxton, Butte County Surveyor (California) in the 1920s and 1930s.
Mix a political boundary with an evidentiary one and it's a crapshoot. But I'm thinking politics wins.
Dave Karoly, post: 422435, member: 94 wrote: It appears from the Field Notes that they recovered/reestablished the gradient boundary where Stiles left it in the 1920s.
The notes don't directly state any reason why they merely reestablished Stiles' location without regard to movement of the river but reading between the lines it seems like they are saying that where Stiles established the boundary was ruled to be the boundary by the US Supreme Court therefore the boundary was not mobile after the US Supreme Court Judgment was entered.
From what I have read and from what I have been shown and told thru the years, the Decision by the Supreme Court was a lasting decision that set the boundary to where Stiles originally placed the gradient boundary as a result of his survey.
A Harris, post: 422491, member: 81 wrote: From what I have read and from what I have been shown and told thru the years, the Decision by the Supreme Court was a lasting decision that set the boundary to where Stiles originally placed the gradient boundary as a result of his survey.
That is how they surveyed it.
Duane Frymire, post: 422490, member: 110 wrote: Mix a political boundary with an evidentiary one and it's a crapshoot. But I'm thinking politics wins.
The Texas AG's link is busily kissing behind while implying his immediate predecessor is to blame but these surveys were done during the Bush administration.
I think as soon as someone figures out there is a lot of money to be made selling oil leases to his buddies the surveys will suddenly be reinstated but I'm a cynic.