Subject: 2nd posting of lost kztmuz sequel hopefully not duplicated
Date: Sep 06, 2006 @ 18:26
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next
Prev Post in Time Next
>completely
> examples of maps depicting kztmuz not as a
> arbitrary cardinal tee junction such as might falllandmark
> indiscrimately anywhere
> but as a slightly more wye shaped convergence
> with kztm & tmuz presumably homing in on some
> just therehttp://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/kazakstan_admin96.jpg
>
>http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kazakhst.pdf
>http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/uzbekist.pdf
>the
> &
> comparing the new improved topo more carefully to
> satpichundreds
> even without regard to the unreliable border
> depictions on them both
> or the peculiar double register of roads many
> of feet apartbest
> one of which is actually shown going off the cliff
> oops
> etc etc
> i find the topo isograms seem quite sketchy & at
> only crudely approximative of the visible topographyisolated
>
> for example the elevation on which the tripoint is
> indicated on the topo doesnt appear to be an
> rise on the satpic but rather a shoulder or spur orin
> peninsular projection descending from still higher
> ground
>
> no small detail
> even granted we are no longer talking about the
> elevation of the highest ground or tallest building
> louisianaaltitude
> oops again
> but perhaps only a mere 250 feet of indicated
> differentialposition
> in close proximity to the indicated tripoint
> or the equivalent of say a much more modestskyscraper
> or hilltop climbwhen
>
> but jesper i still dont understand what you mean
> you saythe
> > Please turn on terrain, tilt the image and find
> area flat.guessed
>
> my terrain box comes already checked & so presumably
> turned on in the default setting
>
> so can you explain what would be necessary for me to
> actually get a horizontal look at the terrain upon &
> around my arrowhead projection
> as you seem to suggest one could easily do
> if that is indeed possible in this case
> since i am still not expecting to find my best
> target area flatlocation
>
> i am intrigued to learn how to do this generally
> but especially so for this particular case
>
> --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> > & come to think of it
> > i keep liking my sloping natural arrowhead chink
> > shoulder guess better
> > when i try to think of how this outlandish
> > might have come to be selected for the tripoint incoincident
> > 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
> > natural landmark beach point overlooking the lakeif
> > not actually projecting into it as a point of landdepiction
> >
> > 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
> > iwhatever
> > must tell you
> > but rather
> > they converge there as if offhandedly
> > to meet this idealized rendezvous point at
> > slightly odd angles they mustline
> >
> > better maps show they may both follow geodetic
> > segments to the trijunction target pointthe
> > but neither of them is a true east west line
> > & they do form a distinct angle by converging at
> > landmark in this happenchance waythis
> >
> > & 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
> > 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