Mike,
I didn't mean "challenge" in the sense that you must have taken it. I meant it
as a motivation and inspiration toward a positive accomplishment, not a rivalry.
In this sense, a challenge is good thing. If you had not brought the need to my
attention, I would not have known of it. Thanks.
Now that you have directed me to message 338, however, I see that I wasted a few
hours of research replowing the same ground. It's not that I didn't enjoy it,
but I could have better used my time. Before I tackle LATXUS, please tell me
what is already known and the nature of the unknown. Thanks.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:58 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Finding MENHUS
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> A few days ago, after I had found LAMSUS, Mike challenged me to
assist with two
> other elusive off-shore US tripoints:
well but first please understand
you may well have felt challenged & indeed even been challenged by
this puzzle
which i did indeed deliberately offer to you
but my intention was & is only to inspire & arouse not only your but
all our collective multipointing instincts & values
& there was & is actually no challenge coming from me
express or implied
to anyone
& least of all toward you lowell
whom i already know will eat such puzzles up like candy anyway
so like rather than feeling put upon in any sense in future please
just let me know any time you would like another such treat
& thats really all there is to that
but basically here at menhus
tho you dont yet have a qed in this case
because
as you have demonstrated
no final conclusion is yet fully possible
you have at least carried the puzzle to the point where it has been
stalled since message 338
at probably 21327 feet 102 degrees east of the center of the
breakwater
a position which btw has been estimated at n42d58m36s x w70d36m40s
& moreover you have even explained why it has been stalled there
so yes that does help a bit
& more than a bit
in fact i would say it helps so much that we might now proceed to
doublecheck my earlier assumptions & measurements & math
& compute from them with some confidence at least a moderately
probable & somewhat exact menhus conclusion
to the nearest degminsecs anyway
except i still havent found the means to perform that simple final
leg of the computation
hahaha
but perhaps you or someone knows how
& will be inspired
to finish this job now
> > & if you wouldnt mind hat tricking it by also nailing the elusive
> > latxus or menhus while you are at it
> > well that would be absolutely trifecta or beyond
>
> I have given some attention to MENHUS, something about which I knew
nothing
> previously. I find that the Supremes decreed a boundary in New
Hampshire v.
> Maine, 434 U.S. 1 (1977), based on a 1740 decree by George II. I
know that Mike
> already knows this.
>
> The trouble seems to be that the Supremes stopped their decreed
boundary at an
> interstate breakwater in the Isles of Shoals, which were divided by
George II,
> and did not extend it beyond to the 3nm line to which Atlantic
states may reach.
> (The isles are close enough to the mainland that no federal waters
intervene
> between mainland and isles.) I think that the boundary stopped at
the
> breakwater because the royal decree of 1740 presented no
delineation beyond the
> harbor in the midst of the Isles of Shoals.
>
> New Hampshire, at least, has passed legislation specifying a
boundary beyond the
> breakwater. New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Title 1, Section 1:15
says:
> _________________
>
> ..and crossing the middle of the breakwater between Cedar Island
[Maine] and
> Star Island [New Hampshire] on a course perpendicular thereto, and
extending on
> the last-mentioned course to the line of mean low water; thence 102%
A1 East
> (true) to the outward limits of state jurisdiction...
> _________________
>
> I suspect that the curious course "102%A1 East (true)" is an
artifact of a poor
> conversion of the text from some word processor format to HTML.
Perhaps, it
> means "102° East (true)."
>
> Both the Constitution and the Revised Statutes of Maine are silent
on the
> location of its boundaries. Until and unless Maine differs with
New Hampshire
> beyond the breakwater, the Supreme Court won't have anything to say.
>
> I hope this helps a bit.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/