Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes kztmuz is reportedly undelineated & definitely elusive
Date: Sep 06, 2006 @ 15:02
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Please turn on terrain, tilt the image and find thearea flat.
> & come to think of it=== message truncated ===
> i keep liking my sloping natural arrowhead chink
> shoulder guess better
> when i try to think of how this outlandish location
> might have come to be selected for the tripoint in
> the
> first place
>
> for kzuz converges from the north along the 56th
> meridian until it reaches the end of the plateau
> & then goes slightly over the edge but evidently
> only
> as far down the chink as this marvelously coincident
> natural landmark beach point overlooking the lake if
> not actually projecting into it as a point of land
>
> but tmuz & kztm do not in fact converge with kzuz
> there exactly at right angles
> notwithstanding the topo depiction of them along a
> parallel of latitude
> as if to form a perfect tee junction
> for that detail is a totally bogus border depiction
> i
> must tell you
> but rather
> they converge there as if offhandedly
> to meet this idealized rendezvous point at whatever
> slightly odd angles they must
>
> better maps show they may both follow geodetic line
> segments to the trijunction target point
> but neither of them is a true east west line
> & they do form a distinct angle by converging at the
> landmark in this happenchance way
>
> & i think it is precisely their slightly unusual
> angles of convergence that really do point to this
> arrowhead tip
> & give away their special relationship to it
> as they perform & celebrate deliberately what the
> 56th
> meridian has done only by chance
>
> otherwise kzuz might have continued south thru this
> wilderness until it really did strike a single
> continuous tmuz & kztm at right angles
>
> for the soviets could just as easily have
> arbitrarily
> done it that way as they perhaps really did do it
> somewhat more sensibly this way
>
> or so i would dare to speculate at this point
>
> --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> > agreed about all of the following
> > except i would still say the tripoint is not
> > necessarily within
> > altho at least partly surrounded by
> > your relatively flat lacustrine basin
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I have gone to Jesper's source, zoomed in, and
> > > captured a clearer
> > > version for our interpretation. It is attached.
> > >
> > > First, the contours are in feet, not meters.
> (The
> > > Map Mart site says
> > > so.) Note also that the distance scale is in
> > miles.
> > >
> > > The contour interval is 250 feet. On this map,
> > > contours of 0, 250, 500,
> > > 750, and 1,000 feet are shown.
> > >
> > > Between the 750 and 500 contours (to the
> northeast
> > > of the lake, anyway),
> > > we find the depiction of the escarpment.
> > >
> > > Descending from the 0 contour, we find, first,
> the
> > > shore of the
> > > intermittent lake, then the shore of the more
> > > permanent lake.
> > >
> > > Within the northwestern lobe of the intermittent
> > > lake, we find several
> > > shoals that rise above the 0 contour (although
> > they
> > > are covered,
> > > incongruously, with the blue stipple indicating
> > > intermittent
> > > inundation). The tripoint appears upon the
> > shoulder
> > > of one of these
> > > shoals, just slightly above the 0 contour.
> > >
> > > I think that we can conclude that this
> best-known
> > > topographic map
> > > (whatever its possible imprecisions) shows the
> > > tripoint in a relatively
> > > flat lacustrine basin.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes kztmuz is
> > > reportedly undelineated
> > > & definitely elusive
> > >
> > >
> > > > as you say could not be very much higher
> > > > please be aware
> > > > the map if it can be believed shows the
> tripoint
> > 2
> > > > distinct levels above the normal water level
> of
> > > the
> > > > recognizably outlined lake
> > > > &
> > > > at least some if not all the elevation
> gradients
> > > are
> > > > 250 meters apart
> > > >
> > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jesper,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks very much for the three PDF maps of
> the
> > > area
> > > >> and the referral to Google Earth. When
> > > Earth
> > > >> debuted, I tried it, but it did not work for
> > me.
> > > I
> > > >> tried it again today, and it works great!
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that your PDF maps demonstrate that
> the
> > > lake
> > > >> in the tripoint depression is variable in
> level
> > > and
> > > >> size over time or season, flooding the
> tripoint
> > > at
> > > >> times. Since this appears to be the case,
> the
> > > >> tripoint could not be very much higher in
> > > elevation
> > > >> than the more regularly wet lakebed farther
> > > >> southeast.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lowell G. McManus
> > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: Jesper Nielsen/Borderbase
> > > >> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:47 PM
> > > >> Subject: SV: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes
> kztmuz
> > > is
> > > >> reportedly undelineated & definitely elusive
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> No fancy results of terrain (or 3d) to show
> > as
> > > the
> > > >> entire areas is very flat. The tripoint
> itself
> > is
> > > at
> > > >> water level at 0m and the surroundings do no
> go
> > > >> higher than 160 meters.
> > > >>
> > > >> But please learn to use the free Google
> > Earth,
> > > >> downloadable at http://earth.google.com ,
> > > yourself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jesper
> > > >> --
> > > >> Borderbase - your online guide to
> > international
>