hahahaha
hahahahaha
logn ilev sydlexia
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> You wrote:
> i imagine there would have had to be some prior cnpk
> agreement
> regarding the exact borders of the joint zone
> which specified marker 423 aka 1 as its corner post
> --> I am not aware of any joint zone agreements on the
> Tumen River ending at marker 423 between China and
> PAKISTAN... ;-)
>
> --- acroorca2002 <orc@o...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west"
> > <
> > petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > > Funny, the decree from 1998 does not mention the
> > 306,9 m from the
> > > border marker 1.
> >
> > whoops
> > you are right
> >
> > & i thought thats where you were quoting it from
> > hahaha
> > but the text in message 12459 states no such
> > distance
> >
> > er
> > so where did you get that number from then
> >
> >
> > but anyway
> > lets not get bogged down over that detail
> > because we dont seem to need it anyway
> > & the text does seem to give us all we do need
> >
> >
> > but please notice that tho it carefully defines the
> > line of
> > delimitation of the boundary water areas of the 3
> > countries
> > it speaks in terms of these waters only as ru & kp &
> > joint cnkp
> >
> > it doesnt address cn waters at all
> > only joint cnkp waters
> >
> > very important distinction to notice
> >
> > > If I follow you line of reasoning, this is because
> >
> > > the entire line between the two markers (No.1 and
> > No.2) is a triline
> > > shared by all three states
> >
> > no i dont mean this
> >
> > i do mean the triline is shared by all 3 states
> > with cnkp jointly abutting it on one side & ru on
> > the other
> >
> > & i do believe the triline begins at marker 1
> > at the left bank
> > as stated in the text
> >
> > but i dont believe the triline can extend past
> > midchannel upon the
> > direct perpendicular line from marker 1 to marker 2
> > whatever that distance happens to be
> >
> > whether that specified number of meters or otherwise
> >
> >
> > the joint cnkp zone itself may extend from bank to
> > bank
> > or in other words all the way from marker 1 to
> > marker 2
> >
> > we dont know this tho
> > nor need to know
> >
> > but since kpru begins at midchannel
> > the triline per se must end there
> > at cnkpkpru
> >
> > more below
> >
> > > , but there is a slight problem and
> > > correct me if I misunderstood something: In art 1.
> > nr.2 is says
> > > that "... state boundary meeting point of the
> > three countries is
> > > located on the point where the line delimiting the
> > boundary water
> > > areas of the three countries intersects the middle
> > line of the main
> > > channel of the river." To me, this is the actual
> > and factual
> > > tripoint. At this point, as it says in art.3 nr.1
> > at the end "...a
> > > boundary merkar on the state boundary meeting
> > point of the three
> > > countries, which is located on the water level of
> > the Tumannaja
> > > river, will not be erected." That's what I meant
> > by getting wet and
> > > going fishing. The tripoint is on the water level.
> >
> > yes i see & agree there is a slight problem
> > as you say
> > & i believe it is not you who need correcting but
> > the treaty writers
> > hahahaha
> >
> > they think they have a triline with a tripoint at
> > only one end
> > the wet end
> > cnkpkpru
> >
> > but they really have a triline with tripoints on
> > both ends
> >
> > they focus in the text upon the wet unmarked
> > tripoint alone
> > & yet ironically they can do this only after having
> > first anointed
> > marker 1 as the dry terminal of the triline aka
> > cncnkpru tripoint
> >
> > a fact which they then proceed to ignore
> >
> > i believe this is a defect in the text
> >
> > a stick must have 2 ends
> >
> > & the text acknowledges both ends but then spaces
> > one of them out
> >
> > more below
> >
> > > However, on the land both on Korean and
> > Russian-chinese river bank,
> > > there are the tripoint markers and that's
> > something else than the
> > > actual tripoint. The actual tripoint on the water
> > level is located
> > > on the line between the two tripoint markers no.1
> > and no.2. There is
> > > no mentioning about how far is the actual tripoint
> > from the two
> > > tripoint markers either.
> > >
> > > Another thing, and interesting enough is that the
> > border marker 423
> > > or the first tripoint marker, is still a border
> > marker between China
> > > and Russia only. The Korea is not to be mentioned
> > on it. This could
> > > mean as I suggested last time, that this border
> > marker 423 has been
> > > chosen for convenience purpose in order to
> > delineate the factual
> > > tripoint on the water level, but not actually
> > giving a territorial
> > > claim on the boundary line to the Koreans.
> >
> > i agree with nearly all the above
> > but given the text we do have
> > i imagine there would have had to be some prior cnpk
> > agreement
> > regarding the exact borders of the joint zone
> > which specified marker 423 aka 1 as its corner post
> >
> > That claim is perhaps
> > > heralded by the erection of tripont marker no.3,
> > where on the one
> > > side is written Korea.
> >
> > here is where we begin to differ
> >
> > i dont attribute any definitive significance to
> > marker number 3 but
> > imagine it to be just for witness or protocol
> >
> > the triline is already fully defined by markers 1 &
> > 2
> > in conjunction with the midchannel point between
> > them
> >
> > Yet it stands solely on the Russian
> > > territory. One might guess that the tripoint
> > marker no.3 is placed
> > > on the line between markers no.1 and no.2 but
> > closer to the river
> > > bank designating the start of the line dividing
> > the river waters
> > > between the joint Chinese-korean and Russian. If
> > the tripoint border
> > > marker no.3 is placed inside Russian territory,
> > then it has to be in
> > > some angle to the line between the other two
> > tripoint markers.
> > > Otherwise the tripoint marker no.3 is placed de
> > facto on the Chinese-
> > > russian border. But again no specification about
> > it in the decree.
> >
> > i dont see any of these guesses as necessary or very
> > likely
> >
> > also geometrically
> > marker 3 cant possibly fall on the direct line
> > between markers 1 & 2
> >
> > > The art 1 nr.1 says something about the main
> > points deciding the
> > > direction of the line. It says that, ...a straight
> > line, running
> > > perpendicular from boundary marker no.423 on the
> > Russian-Chinese
> > > state boundary to the line in the middle of the
> > main channel of the
> > > river in between the two river banks." If the
> > tripoint marker no. 3
> > > is not on this straight line, then it can not run
> > perpendicular to
> > > the actual tripoint in the river.
> >
> > i dont see the correctness or even the need for this
> > line of reasoning
> >
> > > The line can not be considered as the same as the
> > actual tripoint.
> >
> > i think we must again face the fact with cnkpru that
> > we have already
> > faced & well digested with both bedelu & defrlu
> >
> > our tripoint is a triline
> >
> > & at the ends of the triline are
> > tripoints
> >
> > or if you prefer
> > semi tripoints
> >
> > but thats the basic topology
> >
> > a ditripunctitriline
> >
> > it is geometrically determined
> >
> > & we cant help it or change it
> >
> > but i just think the writers of this cnkpru treaty
> > were a little naive
> > & clumsy about it
> > & you are rightly picking up on this
> >
> > > None of the treaty parties mention it like this.
> > Art 3. no.1 says
> > > that, ...the state boundary meeting point of the
> > three countries
> > > will be demarcated by three markers...". To me, it
> > does not mean
> > > that every tripoint marker is the actual tripoint
> > or that the line
> > > is a point in itself, but that the tripoint
> > markers only demarcate
> > > the actual tripoint. The demarcation determines
> > the actual tripoint
> > > on the water level of Tumannja river. Thus, the
> > tripoint markers are
> > > mathematical, physical and geographical constructs
> > with the sole
> > > purpose of demarcating the actual tripoint.
> >
> > i agree with all this
> > & refer it to the cnkpkpru tripoint
> >
> > but the text also indicates that marker 1 also marks
> > the conjunction or
> > tripoint of the cncnkpru water areas
> >
> > & moreover that the triline extends between these 2
> > tripoints
> >
> > otherwise i cant see how to rationalize all this
> > into a single picture
> >
> >
> >
> > & by way of footnote
> > a tiny additional detail
> >
> > there is some reason to believe the cnkp joint area
> > is wet only
> >
> > & thus it couldnt actually begin at marker 423 on
> > the riverbank
> > but rather only at the waterline very near this
> > marker
> >
> > & this may technically reduce the length of the
> > triline slightly
> > & make its terminal point the bank itself rather
> > than the marker
> >
> > but this is at most a mere quibble
> >
> >
> > end of insertions
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Petter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "pete2784west" <
> > > > petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > > > > As I understand it: The border marker 423 is
> > originally Russian-
> > > > > chinese only, but probably for the convenience
> > of setting up a
> > > > > borderline which ends in the middle of the
> > river Tumen, this
> > > border
> > > > > marker is taken as a starting point (cf.
> > art.1). From this point
> > > the
> > > > > line is perpendicular to the Chinese-korean
> > borderline formed by
> > > the
> > > > > middle of the main channel of the river Tumen.
> > The waters of the
> > > > > river behind the borderline going from border
> > marker 423 to the
> > > > > middle of the river are called "joint boundary
> > water area of
> > > China
> > > > > and Korea DPR". So the waters are joint, and
> > it makes it easier
> > > for
> > > > > the Korean border guards to shoot at people
> > fleeing the country
> > > as
> > > > > long as they are in the river, but once they
> > get on the shore
> > > they
> > > > > are in China only. The Chinese-korean
> > borderline goes all the
> > > way
> > > > > through the middle of the river channel up to
> > the point where
> > > > > Russia, China and KoreaDPR meet. Further down
> > the stream of
> > > Tumen
> > > > > river continues Russian-korean borderline
> > being placed again in
> > > the
> > > > > middle of the course of the Tumen river. We
> > are still talking
> > > about
> > > > > waters, no land. The tripoints are placed on
> > both sides of the
> > > > > river,
> > > >
> > > > i figure you must mean the tripoint markers here
> > petter
> > > >
> > > > not the tripoints themselves
> > > >
> > > > but i agree we are really talking about 2
> > distinct tripoints here
> > > > cncnkpru & cnkpkpru
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > however
> > > > these actual tripoints are simply at the 2 end
> > points of the cnkp
> > > joint
> > > > or condo zone cnkpru triline
> > > >
> > > > think of it as an ordinary tripoint halved or
> > stretched into a
> > > triline
> > > > between 2 semitripoints
> > > >
> > > > & one of those semitripoints is marked by
> > monument 1
> > > >
> > > > & the other is the unmarked point where the
> > sight line between
> > > monument
> > > > 1 & monument 2 crosses the midchannel line
> > > >
> > > > so as i understand it
> > > > marker 1 also serves with marker 2 to witness
> > the entire triline
> > > > including the unmarked end point &
> > cosemitripoint at midchannel
> > > >
> > > > we have encountered something very much like
> > this before with the
> > > delu
> > > > condo trilines
> > > >
> > > > no biggie
> > > >
> > > > technically
> > > > as was observed then
> > > > all such trilines are dipunctitrilines
> > > >
> > > > or more technically still ditripunctitrilines
> > > > meaning simply trilines with tripoints at each
> > terminal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > & i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint
> > zone extends all
> > > the way
> > > > to the korean bank
> > > > nor does it apparently matter to the russians
> > > > who have no such condo with korea
> > > > nor does it apparently matter for tripointing
> > &or trilining
> > > purposes
> > > >
> > > > more insertions below
> > > >
> > > > but they are standing on the sovereign
> > territories, either
> > > > > Russia, China or Korea. Art. 4 states that
> > every country is
> > > having
> > > > > responsibility for one border marker each. The
> > picture of
> > > > > bordermarker 3 I've seen here, is Russian
> > responsibility.
> > > >
> > > > technically 1 marker is on cncnkpru & 1 is in kp
> > & 1 is in ru
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, reaching a tripoint here means getting wet
> > and go fishing.
> > > >
> > > > not really
> > > > as explained 1 tripoint is marked & the other is
> > wet
> > > >
> > > > From
> > > > > border marker no.1 on a straight line
> > perpendicular to the
> > > middle of
> > > > > the stream of the river Tumen, 306,9 m in to
> > the water. Anyone
> > > > > should feel pretty safe then :-). Then, still
> > following the
> > > line,
> > > > > one should get to the shores of the Korea DPR
> > and hit the border
> > > > > marker no.2. When still in the water and
> > keeping the line aiming
> > > at
> > > > > border marker no. 2, to the right you are
> > still in the joint
> > > Chinese-
> > > > > korean joint boundary water area. To the left
> > you are still in
> > > the
> > > > > water, but whether Russians and Koreans agreed
> > to something
> > > similiar
> > > > > as the chines and koreans, I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not clear about why the third border
> > marker has been set up
> > > on
> > > > > the Russian territory and whether this border
> > marker is placed
> > > on
> > > > > the same borderline drawn between border
> > marker no. 1 (on
> > > Chinese-
> > > > > russian border) and no. 2 (in Korea).
> > > >
> > > > clearly it is not on the line between markers 1
> > & 2 but downstream
> > > >
> > > > more below
> > > >
> > > > This is why the final protocol
> > > > > from 2002 is still needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Petter
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > Kaufman
> > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Witness marker 1 (aka CN-RU 423): We know
> > this is
> > > > > > exactly on the CN-RU boundary and is exactly
> > on the
> > > > > > point where CN-RU hits the CNKP condo
> > (CN-CNKP-RU).
> > > > > > So why is CNKP-KP-RU the official "state
> > boundary
> > > > > > meeting point of the three countries"
> > (article 1,
> > > > > > section 2 of the treaty in message 12459)?
> > > >
> > > > this end of the triline is the official meeting
> > point of the 3
> > > > countries just as much as the other end of the
> > triline is the
> > > official
> > > > meeting point
> > > > & indeed just as much as the entire triline as a
> > whole is the
> > > official
> > > > meeting point
> > > >
> > > > isnt that lovely
> > > >
> > > > a line is a point
> > > >
> > > > & a point has become a line between 2 points
> > >
> > >
> > > > Doesn't
> > > > > > CN-CNKP-RU have just as much the same
> > tripoint status
> > > > > > since it is one of the 2 terminal points of
> > the
> > > > > > CNKP-RU triline?
> > > >
> > > > yes
> > > >
> > > > > > Also - I am unclear on the condo in this
> > regard: Is
> > > > > > the CNKP condo the entire river (1 in
> > diagram) or just
> > > > > > half of the river on the Chinese side (2 in
> > diagram).
> > > > > > I mean we know the triline only goes out to
> > the middle
> > > > > > of the main channel of the river, but
> > couldn't a
> > > > > > CNKP-KP line continue after that?
> > > >
> > > > we dont know
> > > >
> > > > nor does it actually matter for the purposes of
> > our cnkpru chase
> > > >
> > > > > > -Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:43
> > PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: cnkpru -
> > more
> > > > > > > pictures
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some more pics (they seem to connect):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p352.jpg
> > > > > > > > >
> > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p081.jpg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > this latter pic appears to be by far the
> > best pic we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & if the fence observed by jesper does
> > indeed mark
> > > > > > > cnru
> > > > > > > then cnru marker 1 aka 423 should be on
> > the bank at
> > > > > > > the end of that
> > > > > > > fence
> > > > > > > slightly obscured by the foliage
> > > > > > > unless that dark dot there near the sand
> > flat is the
> > > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > yikes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but in any case the triline should run
> > from this
> > > > > > > cncnkpru point 423
> > > > > > > perpendicular to the bank & halfway across
> > the
> > > > > > > channel
> > > > > > > to the unmarked cnkpkpru tripoint at the
> > other end
> > > > > > > of the triline
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > does everybody see & get that
> > > > > > > because i do believe we can visualize all
> > this now
> > > > > > > for the first time
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > bravissimos all
> > > > > > > in any case
> > > > > > > > > Peter S.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools