Kent McMillan, post: 441108, member: 3 wrote: Yes, but if the underlying system of land grants is much simpler and you then overlay subdivisions by metes and bounds upon that system. you don't magically end up with a system that even begins to approach the complexity of a system of metes ang bounds land grants that are also subdivided by metes and bounds over time. The initial state of one system is inherently of a higher order of complexity than the other system that began at a much lower level of complexity.
In PLSSia, I suspect that many posters conflate the absence of original evidence of the government subdivision with complexity. Trying to fly by flapping ones arms isn't inherently complex as much as it is just difficult and contrary to the laws of physics.
So now you not only think you're able to leap tall land grants in a single bound....but you also think you can fly?! Then why the hell are you having so much trouble getting over that damned fence?
thebionicman, post: 441110, member: 8136 wrote: Flapping your lips on a subject where you have no knowledge will get you the same result.
So, when you begin with a more complex system such as metes and bounds land grants and overlay more metes and bounds subdivisions of the grants upon it. it pretty well follows that the results are necessarily more complex than beginning with a simpler system and overlaying some metes and bounds subdivisions on it. This doesn't seem that inobvious.
paden cash, post: 441111, member: 20 wrote: So now you not only think you're able to leap tall land grants in a single bound....but you also think you can fly?! Then why the hell are you having so much trouble getting over that damned fence?
The answer is that I spent the field day doing other things and haven't gotten back to the corner in question that lies on the other side of the fence. I found a 60d nail in an old rock mound that a friend of mine had set about 40 years ago before he departed this life and I'm going to have a look at his records to make sure that they don't provide any evidence very much at odds with what I think to be the probable situation (i.e. location of the corner in question).
Kent McMillan, post: 441115, member: 3 wrote: ... and I'm going to have a look at his records to make sure that they don't provide any evidence very much at odd with what I think to be the probable situation (i.e. location of the corner in question).
There you go again being so objective with evidence. 😉
Kent McMillan, post: 441113, member: 3 wrote: So, when you begin with a more complex system such as metes and bounds land grants and overlay more metes and bounds subdivisions of the grants upon it. it pretty well follows that the results are necessarily more complex than beginning with a simpler system and overlaying some metes and bounds subdivisions on it. This doesn't seem that inobvious.
When you only see what you want to I suppose thats true.
You ignore the fact that we had numerous non-rectangular entities (some of which I listed) long before the GLO. Really not much point in repeating it. You have decided to remain ignorant so go on and wear it.
thebionicman, post: 441117, member: 8136 wrote: When you only see what you want to I suppose thats true.
You ignore the fact that we had numerous non-rectangular entities (some of which I listed) long before the GLO. Really not much point in repeating it. You have decided to remain ignorant so go on and wear it.
Well, that quick assay of various broad expanses of the Western US that I posted earlier just showed the usual pattern of townships. At some point, doesn't citing rare exceptions as proof of complexity undercut the merits of the argument?
paden cash, post: 441116, member: 20 wrote: There you go again being so objective with evidence.
I think that the more obvious frame would be in terms of uncertainty. I'm sure we all want to be relatively certain, but to get to that point involves shaking various trees to see what falls out in the way of contrary evidence in order to estimate what someone else later might be able to find. It isn't conclusive so much as it is indicative.
Kent McMillan, post: 441120, member: 3 wrote: Well, that quick assay of various broad expanses of the Western US that I posted earlier just showed the usual pattern of townships. At some point, doesn't citing rare exceptions as proof of complexity undercut the merits of the argument?
Relying on quad sheets for survey data is even worse than surveying from a tax map. The last claim I retraced had the sections clearly marked and numbered on the quad. The township had never been surveyed aside from the claims and mill sites. Regardless, another red herring. The piss poor work you follow doesnt make you a superior Surveyor.
thebionicman, post: 441123, member: 8136 wrote: Relying on quad sheets for survey data is even worse than surveying from a tax map. The last claim I retraced had the sections clearly marked and numbered on the quad. The township had never been surveyed aside from the claims and mill sites. Regardless, another red herring. The piss poor work you follow doesnt make you a superior Surveyor.
Okay, so is this the Kooper Gambit of resorting to mineral claims as evidence of the complexity of the PLSS? I'm just asking. If so, how many mineral claims would you suppose there are in Kansas or Iowa?
First rule of RPLStoday is .....Kent will always get in the last word.
Mark Mayer, post: 441126, member: 424 wrote: First rule of RPLStoday is .....Kent will always get in the last word.
When you consider that what drives posting is interest, once the interest in the topic peters out, postings should also plummet. On the other hand, when posters tee up obviously false propositions, such as imagining that somehow the subdivision of a simple system of land grants by METES AND BOUNDS is in any way equivalent in complexity to a superficially similar system, but one based upon a highly complex system of the underlying grants, it does spark interest in correcting such obviously mistaken ideas.
Kent McMillan, post: 441127, member: 3 wrote: When you consider that what drives posting is interest, once the interest in the topic peters out, postings should also plummet. On the other hand, when posters tee up obviously false propositions, such as imagining that somehow the subdivision of a simple system of land grants by METES AND BOUNDS is in any way equivalent in complexity to a superficially similar system, but one based upon a highly complex system of the underlying grants, it does spark interest in correcting such obviously mistaken ideas.
But why does that matter.
I can't think of any reply.
Isn't it a better that we all get along as a profession or at least attempt to try.
I do realize that there are some interesting confrontational dialogue that occur between you, Loyal, Gene and a few others.
Then there are Kent stalkers like Paden, Cow, Nate and a few others.
There's a lot of "pin the tail on the Kent" games here. Some bring some levity here while others are just stupid.
You can try to fight stupid but it's definitely a time waster.
To paraphrase Grace Slick....as far as survey systems.... "It all doesn't mean sh1t to a tree"
Robert Hill, post: 441128, member: 378 wrote: Isn't it a better that we all get along as a profession or at least attempt to try.
I'm perfectly willing to PRETEND that the PLSS is some incredibly complex system of land grants as long as everyone understands that the whole idea is so obviously false as to label anyone an idiot who actually believes it. Obviously, I have the disadvantage of actually practicing in a genuinely complex system of metes and bounds land grants that Texas has.
Kent McMillan, post: 441124, member: 3 wrote: Okay, so is this the Kooper Gambit of resorting to mineral claims as evidence of the complexity of the PLSS? I'm just asking. If so, how many mineral claims would you suppose there are in Kansas or Iowa?
If you spent only a fraction of your time doing research instead of your brash conjecture, you would know the answer. Iowa was never subject to the U.S. Mining Laws. There was a brief period of time that Missouri and Kansas were subject to U.S. mining laws. That was ended by the Act of May 5, 1876 (19 Stat. L. 52)
It has been 11 years since I did the research for a talk in Pittsburg, KS, but IIRC there were only one or two mineral surveys in the entire state of Kansas. The one that I do remember was a salt placer that is now submerged by a reservoir.
In you didn't notice Kent, thebionicman is licensed in five western states, all of which have mineral surveys.
The Kooper Gambit....you always keep me giggling with your stylistic insults.
Kent McMillan, post: 441129, member: 3 wrote: I'm perfectly willing to PRETEND that the PLSS is some incredibly complex system of land grants as long as everyone understands that the whole idea is so obviously false as to label anyone an idiot who actually believes it. Obviously, I have the disadvantage of actually practicing in a genuinely complex system of metes and bounds land grants that Texas has.
No Kent. Surveying in Texas isn't incredibly complex, only your emotional neediness to deem them as such. Whenever someone challenges your opinions you create any number of straw men to counter the opposing view.
I know quite a bit about sequential, overlapping, metes and bounds surveys. It is the only type of boundary survey that I do. The fact that a rectangular grid was established before or after these surveys were conducted has zero bearing on retracing them. Retracing/resurveying mineral surveys isn't complex by any means. It just takes longer to do the research and determine the relationships between those sequentially conveyed parcels. However, you invariably conflate additional time to complexity. You have come up with all sorts of rationales for why your work is so complex. Remember when you suggested that weighing the field notes of a Texas metes and bounds survey was an objective way to show it was far more complex than an obviously light-weight set if field notes in a PLSS state. Your poor fevered brain couldn't think of anything more, better that day. Poor bunny. 😉
