ok jesper & lowell
a day later & i havent found another stitch on this topic
so lets go back & assume the tactical politage chart is indeed as
unreliable as it warns us it may be
& so lets forget the 3rd iqjosa probability that the chart introduces
& lets forget the similarly apparent misalignment of the iqjo &
iqsa de facto slivers it also indicates
at precisely the same color separation offset btw
hahaha
& lets assume instead that lowells red & black square picture is
as true in reality as it is elegantly simple
just to continue the hunt
but also because it keeps looking better in the absence of
anything else
& lets recall that the last known iqsa discussions were in 1983
so the 1984 de facto iqjo sliver could well be just the second
shoe dropping in a 2 stage tripartite renegotiation of the tripoint
from de jure iqjosa atop jabal unayzah down to de facto iqjosa
as depicted by lowells red square
so in that case
& considering the pivotal importance of iqjosy to the iqjo sliver
i was inspired to check out its countervailing pivotal point
namely that of the iqsa sliver
but without adequate mapping in such a wilderness
i was reduced to indirect & deductive methods
by careful measurement of what little there is to go by on the
admittedly inaccurate tactical pilotage charge
i was able to project both iqsa versions shown there to an
intersection or sliver pivot point very roughly 65 miles to the sse
of iqjosa
but the next available probable locality in all this wilderness
doesnt come until the next vertex on de jure iqsa
at a locality named mukur according to the ibs & shown very
roughly 80 or 90 miles sse of iqjosa depending on sources
where there is also a known checkpoint
but nothing else
so in light of the crudeness of the tools & methods
we could well have a perfect enough match at the mukur
turnpoint
so i think it the likeliest if not the only conceivable vertex point for
the iqsa de facto sliver
but still no rationale for the sliver
nor for mukur or its turnpoint or turnpoints either
nor any other trace of it or them anywhere
so it could be a blind alley
yet it is the only alley i have been able to find or even imagine for
this highly mysterious & elusive de facto iqsa & iqjosa
in the meantime point seekers may be well advised to bag both
the de jure & the de facto iqjosa points as depicted
& to be sure to poke around mukur too for any further leads to
understanding all these relationships
while in the neighborhood
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> apologies for the unintended double post in the wee hours
>
> & in morning light i am liking your theory better & better
> but have still found nothing to support it after much search
>
> the last known alteration in iqsa was in 1981 when they divvied
> up the old neutral zone
>
> perhaps there was something in that treaty about iqjosa too
> that will prove your point
>
> but i cant find it either
>
> of course
> since this is mapped on the tactical pilotage chart as de facto
> the difficulty in finding any documentation is understandable
>
>
> hard to imagine why both iqjo & iqsa would have abandoned
the
> prominent & well established summit of jebel unayzah tho
> in favor of a different common point
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > nicely done
> > & by careful measurement on the tactical pilotage chart
> > & areal computations
> > i have confirmed the acreages of your areas a & b are easily
> > within 1 percent of each other
> > so this fact alone is highly presumptive of an equal land
swap
> for
> > those little trapezoidal parcels alone
> >
> > but apart from that
> > the sliver as a whole was evidently subtracted from jordan
pure
> > & simple
> > without any apparent territorial compensation from iraq
> >
> > so the quid pro quo wasnt for the primary de facto
adjustment
> > but evidently followed upon it only secondarily
> >
> > & it was in that sense that i meant i dont see how jordan
> gained
> > any territory back for what it gave
> > overall
> > & still dont
> >
> >
> > also
> > the positioning of your red line conjunction at the red square
> > tho visually promising
> > actually appears to miss a perfect match by more than a mile
> on
> > the chart when carefully measured
> > so in conjunction with such a precise acreage match
> > this detail cant be so easily presumed to be coincident
> > but seems more likely to be a wishful thought & a forced fit
> >
> > however
> > the thick mexican style border depictions do muddy things up
> >
> > & all the caveats on the chart that alignments are only
> > approximate may save your hypothesis as well as bust my
> idea
> > that there may really be 3 rather than only the 2 probable
> iqjosas
> > you show as red & black squares in your diagram
> >
> > but without harder data & pending some explanation of this
> > hitherto unnoticed de facto iqsa as good as your explanation
of
> > the de facto iqjo
> > & some clue that there really was some tripartite
> understanding
> > that could explain the existence of such a triple point
> > i think all these possible convergences & coincidences
should
> > be held in suspense
> >
> > your attempt to connect everything is interesting
> > & i would beat the bushes with you to validate it
> > & am quite curious as to what this de facto iqsa is all about
> now
> > but the existence of the double or triple iqjosa probability
could
> > still be completely unrelated to the existence of the double
iqjo
> > probability
> >
> > fascinating puzzle in any case
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > I prepared a simple web page at
> www.mexlist.com/bp/iqjo.htm
> > to illustrate how
> > > the current IQJO boundary might have evolved. The map
on
> > the left is from the
> > > Sandia paper cited earlier. The map on the right is one that
I
> > have devised to
> > > illustrate the scenario that I suggest.
> > >
> > > The black lines on my map are the traditional boundaries
> > intersecting at the
> > > black IQJOSA tripoint. For some reason (perhaps nothing
> > more than the
> > > availability of more accurate maps), the tripoint was moved
> > from the black one
> > > to the red one, thus creating the alternate red boundaries,
> > which are shown as
> > > the "de facto" boundaries on various maps that we have
> > recently seen. Then came
> > > the 1984 agreement to provide for the Iraqi military airfield.
In
> > that
> > > agreement, Jordan swapped "A" to Iraq in exchange for "B,"
> > thus establishing the
> > > boundaries shown in blue. The Ruwayshid Airfield is
indeed
> > in "A."
> > >
> > > I can't prove this scenario, but it seems reasonable, and it
> > answers the
> > > question as to what territory Jordan gained (in respect to
the
> > red boundary)--or
> > > retained (in respect to the black boundary).
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 5:57 PM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: IQJOSA
> > >
> > >
> > > > ahh nice
> > > > i hadnt noticed that
> > > >
> > > > not only 2 iqsas but a dogleg of iqjo also
> > > > rather than the simple wye shaped iqjosa trijunction we
> saw
> > on
> > > > your first map this morning
> > > >
> > > > plus another addition to iqjo obviously
> > > > the extra reach created between the parallel iqsas
> > > >
> > > > so 2 more perfect mysteries
> > > > perhaps related to the iqjo sliver
> > > > which has now been pretty much explained by lowell
> > > > tho i dont see how jordan gained any territory
> > > >
> > > > & what you are calling parallel iqsas may actually
converge
> > into
> > > > another sliver shape off frame to the southeast for all we
> > know
> > > > unless there is an online continuation of this map
> > > >
> > > > but clearly there are now not just 2 but 3 probable iqjosas