What are these? Buildings? Rocks?

[Kiros32]

The thick white line is a river. The objects appear to be in a clearing along the river. Any idea what they are?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kiros32]

FYI, the photo above was taken in 1939. This is a recent photo of the area, which doesn't really help much actually

 

[Lafitte]

They look like boulders to me. The older picture seems to show that the river either flooded and/or changed course in the past.

That's my 2 wheats

 

[Tin Nugget]

I would say that area is where the river used to run through and has pushed itself away from flooding and erosion on the far bank. There are many shifts on the Trinity river here when you compare old maps to new ones and it is always in the river bends. It also looks like a road went through there. Notice the cut through the tree line along the river bank and is still somewhat visible in the newer shot.

 

[mamabear]

can you go to this spot? It would be interesting to see it up close.

 

[Tin Nugget]

Kiros, I went to your area if that is where this spot is and tried to find it on maps.live.com but did not see it. The good thing is that on maps.live the birdseye view feature is available and you can get a much clearer view of the area with it. Give it a try.

 

[UncleVinnys]

Looks like a steep hill with exposed rocks.
The river winds its way around the hill.
If it's steep enough this may indicate erosion or else
just exposed bedrock.

 

[TheHarleyMan2]

There are some buildings there towards the top. There could be other buildings there as well, but not sure without a different angle, but the retangle and square objects at the top of the photo are deffinitely buildings. You could get someone that studies arial photos who can give you a better answer.

 

[plainsman]

Wouldn't think they are any kind of permanent buildings. Looks like that area would have been flooded during spring high water episodes.

 

[kuhnfucius]

That looks like a portion of the river along the horn. If it is, what did I say! Bingo! Burns me up after "Edde" said of my post "Do not believe a word you read on here, for the most part, use your best judgment, while you still have it. The longer you read this, the less good judgment you will possess."

 

[Kiros32]

That looks like a portion of the river along the horn. If it is, what did I say! Bingo! Burns me up after "Edde" said of my post "Do not believe a word you read on here, for the most part, use your best judgment, while you still have it. The longer you read this, the less good judgment you will possess."

That quote is in all of Edde's posts, it shows up as part of his standard text every time he posts. It wasn't directed toward you. Edde is a good guy.

And yes, that is a portion of the horn. It's very intriguing and I can't wait to get down there and check it out.

 

[kuhnfucius]

Thanks for straightening me out on that one. I stop sharpening my k-bar (good back cleaner).

 

[Edmund]

Hi, new member here.
The 1st photo appears to be a river bend a short time after flooding.
When flooding occurs the river flows FAST and STRAIGHTER cutting off the corners where possible.
When the flow returns to normal (slower), a river tends to meander taking the path of least resistance.
It looks to me to have some craters of sorts in the washed over bank that may be sink holes, but that I'm not so sure of.

 

[kuhnfucius]

I have reviewed down stream bends similar to the spot in question, comparing the erosion and deposition patterns. The place of attention is right at the spot that usually gets a lot of deposits from flooding. Due to the steepness of the walls of the canyon here I tend to discount the idea the river has changed course as other reply has suggested. The immediate angle of the walls might also limit deposits seen in other inside bends, which usually gives them a clean or wiped out appearance. Note that in the newer pictures this area is tree covered. The inference being that _if_ the clearing seen in the older photos was cause by water, why is it now tree covered? Another mystery to me involves why put even a temporary structure in this location? If they are buildings, I have some thoughts on why. First some more info is needed. In the original photos (another thread) there appeared to be a railroad bride and tunnel across the (SW end?) neck of this bend / loop (not shown here). This testifies to the steepness of the terrain, as the older roads usually follow the river. If this is a railroad bridge and tunnel, do you know when it was constructed relative the date of the 1939 photo? If the 1939 photo is covers a larger area, is this bridge and tunnel present? thanks K.

 

[Kiros32]

I have reviewed down stream bends similar to the spot in question, comparing the erosion and deposition patterns. The place of attention is right at the spot that usually gets a lot of deposits from flooding. Due to the steepness of the walls of the canyon here I tend to discount the idea the river has changed course as other reply has suggested. The immediate angle of the walls might also limit deposits seen in other inside bends, which usually gives them a clean or wiped out appearance. Note that in the newer pictures this area is tree covered. The inference being that _if_ the clearing seen in the older photos was cause by water, why is it now tree covered? Another mystery to me involves why put even a temporary structure in this location? If they are buildings, I have some thoughts on why. First some more info is needed. In the original photos (another thread) there appeared to be a railroad bride and tunnel across the (SW end?) neck of this bend / loop (not shown here). This testifies to the steepness of the terrain, as the older roads usually follow the river. If this is a railroad bridge and tunnel, do you know when it was constructed relative the date of the 1939 photo? If the 1939 photo is covers a larger area, is this bridge and tunnel present? thanks K.

The bridge was there in 1939.

 

[kuhnfucius]

Well on the earlier photo with the bridge, it goes into a dark area which I assume was a tunnel (?). Tunnel or "cut" one is going to need wood and explosives. Dynamite was used in both railroad engineering, tunneling and lumber camps. I don't think one would store the large quantities necessary for tunneling on the immediate job site, even by the safety standards of the 1930s. Fresh Dynamite is easily transported even over bad roads. So this could have been a temporary storage site. It appears equally distant from both ends (if the one rail end exits the unseen end of the neck) of the river loop. If built in the summer, a cool location might be best. With just black powder not such worry (relatively). Perhaps the distance is deceptive on the map, be interesting to see where that road like feature goes. Say 2-3 miles? Ok, this is an just a theory, but outside a hunting cabin I see no indication of permanent occupation. A garden or river eel damn (just rocks in a "V" pattern) for example would be visible. Even miners on a semi-permanent location might have gardens.

 

[chong2]

if they bothered to take a photo in 1939 then there was something they were trying to photograph, no?

 

[Kiros32]

if they bothered to take a photo in 1939 then there was something they were trying to photograph, no?

The photo is from a website that has old aerial photos from the entire state of PA. This is a small piece of a larger photo of the area.

 

[kuhnfucius]

I have been looking at river sites in central PA, because I will be at one in early May (by chance, not primary reason) . Anyhow, in looking I found a plane. I have seen several such posted here, but I think this one _might_ be new. There can't be something new with all attention to detail I have seen on this site... Since I have never posted a pic here I am going to use this as practice. It is coming into Montoursville Airport. Well that seem easy enough, hope it comes over.