good going
& so at the very least we can now hope to find our first known
mexican multistate monument in the middle of the ruins of a
colonial church in the remotest heart of the yucatan
funny too that it should align so nearly perfectly with the longitude
of bznw & bzgtmx
also in your google haul for nuevo put
comes news that the old bzgtmx monument is gtmx number 107
so we can already foresee that detail in dougs imminent pic of it
within a form possibly somewhat like the other gtmx rock you
beamed up in message 10656
but probably less grandiose since bzgtmx in such a remote area
& happily there is also a confirmation of its longitude as given in
message 11316 to within a very few meters
but a finding that its true latitude is over 100 meters south of the
17deg 49min estimate given there
so good thing our expedition wont be relying on gps in general
& especially not on that particular reading
but will be relying on locals instead
or we might have gotten lost in the jungle
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> This boundary between Campeche and Quintana Roo is most
unusual!
>
> I have a 1916 map that shows the stem of the martini glass
offset to the west of
> the bzgt boundary. Since Quintana Roo was then part of the
state of Yucatán,
> the right side of the glass is missing; but the left side meets
the stem as a
> martini glass should.
>
> I have 1980 and 1981 National Geographic Society maps that
show the stem of the
> glass perfectly aligned with the bzgt boundary, but still meeting
the body of
> the glass (Yucatán) at its southern apex.
>
> Most modern maps through the 1980's and most of the 1990's
are like the 1992
> specimen at http://mexicochannel.net/maps/bigmexico.gif and
one from 1997 at
> http://mexicochannel.net/maps/mexico_pol97.jpg . They show
the stem offset to
> the west of bzgt, but still finding the tripoint with Yucatán at
Yucatán's
> southernmost point. They are more like 1916 than 1980/1981.
>
> Then, take a look at an official 1999 highway map from the
federal Secretaría de
> Comunicaciones y Transports (SCT) at
> http://mexicochannel.net/maps/campeche_sct.jpg . It shows
the stem running
> north from perfect alignment with bzgt, then bending to the
west near its top to
> meet the southern apex of Yucatán in alignment with the
Campeche-Yucatán
> boundary (the left side of the glass. The most intriguing thing
about this map
> is the presence of a place named "Put" at the southern point of
Yucatán (where
> the stem formerly met the body) and one named "Nuevo Put"
where the new stem
> boundary bends westward! Put is also shown on a 1994
Mexican highway atlas that
> I have.
>
> Next, let's look at an extremely detailed 2002 map from SCT at
> http://www.sct.gob.mx/direccion_gral/dgp_atlas/pdf/qroo.pdf .
(Don't even think
> about it unless you have broadband!) This map shows both
versions of the state
> boundary between Campeche and Quintana Roo, with the
area between them marked
> with red diagonal lines! There is a note in red that the state
boundary is in
> litigation before the Suprema Corte de Justicia.
>
> Then we come to the very latest maps from
http://www.maps-of-mexico.com showing
> the wildly toothy versions of boundaries between the three
states! Are these to
> be believed? Well, they are confirmed by the on-line
computer-generated maps of
> the federal government's Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
Geografía, e
> Información! Ignoring the dentition, the general trend of the
boundaries is in
> agreement with the 1999 Campeche map from SCT--the one
with the bent stem on the
> martini glass.
>
> Having seen all of this, now lets go to our best clue: Nuevo
Put. You can do
> your own Google search on "Nuevo Put," and you will find a
handful of documents
> in Spanish relating to the litigation which began in 1997
between all three
> states and the federal government. To make a long story
short, part of the
> controversy centered around which of two rival sets of colonial
ruins were the
> true ruins of Rancho Put, which was specified in some early
document as a vertex
> in the boundary.
>
> None of the documents yet found are a definitive judgment, but
I will search for
> that tomorrow. (It's already way past my bedtime!) Anyway, I
suspect that the
> court moved the boundary from Put to Nuevo Put (where the
National Geographic
> Society knew it should be all along), and that threw the entire
peninsula out of
> whack. Since this probably upset many a local and divided
many a large
> landholding, perhaps the states next undertook some territorial
swaps. Thus the
> toothiness.
>
> More on this as it comes to light, but I think I'm well along on
the trail of
> the truth. Goodnight.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:13 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: BZ-MX
>
>
> wonderful
> i would love to get to the bottom of this great mexican state line
> mystery at last
>
>
> also i just noticed at pcl that the cia continues to place bzgtmx
> cleanly in quintana roo as recently as 2003
> with gtmx still serving as the base of the martini glass
>
> however
> national geographics 1981 shows bznw as a binational tripoint
> with campeche & quintana roo
> somewhat as your map does but with perfectly straight lines
> & there the stem of the martini glass continues thru bznw
along
> bzmx
> & thru bzgtmx too
> & then along bzgt as well
> & perhaps even thru its slight deflection at the belize river
> all the way to the sarstoon river at bzsw for its base
>
> a very tall straight up highball glass
> except for the slight kink & imaginative base
>
>
> also i must confess after all these drinks & a better map
> that the distance from bznw to bzgtmx looks like only about 10
> miles rather than my earlier guess of 15
>
> so the total amount of the presumed belizean concession to
mx
> is actually less that 1 & a quarter square miles
> & if added to the belizean concession to gt of 3 & a half sq mi
> the total amount of both concessions is actually less than 5
> square miles
> rather than the 7 previously guessed
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > The simple outline maps on the web sites of both the states
of
> Campeche and
> > Quintana Roo show their boundaries in the more
conventional
> manner, so I don't
> > know exactly what is what.
> >
> > I have a friend who is a Mexican-born, American-educated
> Mexican national of
> > German ethnicity who lives in Cozumel, Quintana Roo. I
think I
> will write to
> > him and see if he can give any explanation to the wildly
> staggering boundaries
> > shown on some maps between Quintana Roo and its
> neighbors Campeche and Yucatán.
> > I will report back in due time.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:18 PM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: BZ-MX
> >
> >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > There is a good map of this remote corner of Mexico at
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ki3p .
> > > >
> > > > This map shows considerable fine-scale revision of the
> > > boundary between the
> > > > Mexican states of Campeche and Quintana Roo
compared
> to
> > > what is shown on most
> > > > maps. The state boundary is the thick light gray line.
> > > According to this map
> > > > at least, the Mexican territory at the bzgtmx tripoint
pertains
> to
> > > the state of
> > > > Campeche.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > > yes & the bzgtmx tripoint if ever there should become one
> > > seems likely to remain in campeche just as shown on your
> map
> > > tho i have 2 maps here showing it in quintana roo too
> > >
> > > & tho it is shocking to see the state borders in the yucatan
so
> > > distorted on your map from their familiar martini glass
> pattern
> > >
> > > & tho the bznw corner has never been marked by bz & mx
> > > but has only been defined verbally as the point on the rio
azul
> > > where the meridian of bzgtmx crosses it
> > > aha
> > > & thus there could well be some new territory added by
belize
> to
> > > mexico also as a result of the bzgt settlement
> > > & a new question as to which of these 2 mexican states
this
> new
> > > territory would belong to
> > >
> > >
> > > for belize has at least verbally conceded to guatemala the
> extra 3
> > > & a half square mile sliver
> > >
> > > & the new bzgtmx marker has moved east from the old one
to
> > > attach this sliver to guatemala
> > >
> > > & mexico has graciously agreed to facilitate everything too
> > > presumably because by the existing definition she too will
> gain a
> > > few extra square miles in the form of the trapezoidal
> projection of
> > > this sliver from the 2 bzgtmx markers to the rio azul
> > >
> > >
> > > so the resultant roughly 250 meter edge of this addition to
> > > mexican territory along the rio azul would abut quintana roo
> > > even as quintana roo is shown on your map
> > > just as surely as the roughly 15 mile long edge of the
> addition
> > > would abut only campeche as shown on your map
> > >
> > > so technically the new territory could be distributed to either
> or
> > > both of those states without loss of contiguity
> > >
> > > & only common sense would attach it to campeche rather
> than to
> > > quintana roo
> > >
> > > but given all the other nonsensical or at least inscrutable
> border
> > > squiggles mexico seems so fond & capable of
> > > & even assuming your map is as nearly correct as i do
> > > there really is no sure way to predict which of these states
> will
> > > finally gain the newly created mexican lands abutting the
new
> or
> > > future bzgtmx
> > >
> > > i mean
> > > if it & they should ever come into existence
> > >
> > > but right now there is a total of about 7 square miles of
> territory
> > > just blowing in the wind here among the 3 countries
> > > in all 4 directions about the presumptive tripoints
> > > & anything might happen or not happen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/