Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Cooch Behar map (again)<br/>
Date: Dec 10, 2001 @ 10:26<br/>
Author: Mats Hessman (Mats Hessman &lt;blofeld_es@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="5040.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="5042.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2951.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="5040.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="5042.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1055874582"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt;do you guys or dont you agree from the data so <br/>
&gt;far that your number 2 is highly probable & your <br/>
&gt;number 1 also still has a wing & a prayer too<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I don&#39;t wish to violate Brendan&#39;s copyright by<br/>
scanning his excellent paper map, but this is what<br/>
I read from it:<br/>
<br/>
- 35 and the Patgram salient could well be connected<br/>
at just one point. They connect on the map.<br/>
<br/>
- 50 and 51 are definately not connected.<br/>
<br/>
- Instead, 50 and the Patgram salient could<br/>
very well be connected at a point.<br/>
<br/>
I suppose we will need the coordinates to <br/>
be quite sure.<br/>
<br/>
Also: <br/>
<br/>
- 51 is quite clearly shown within 19, which<br/>
is in turn within 47.<br/>
<br/>
Mats</div>