--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I'm going to select some salient points and insert my responses:
>
> You wrote:
>
> > & there may be but neednt be any amateurish approximations
> > as you have suggested elsewhere
> >
> > i think true amateurism
> > the kind we are for & about in our precision try pointing here at
bp
> > wouldnt settle for an approximation if an exactitude were
available
> >
> > so maybe that means there is some difference in what you & i
think of
> > as doing something for the love of it
> > but thats ok too
>
> Oh, I'm all for the maximum possible precision. Whenever we don't
have the
> resources available for absolute precision, we must approximate as
precisely as
> possible.
well this was not what my point was about
& i dont agree we must do anything of the sort
in fact i am sure we dont have to approximate
not in general
& certainly not in this case now that we know the full particulars
but of course we may always approximate if we wish
whether we know we can do better than guess or not
however & moreover
i dont see what approximating anything could possibly have to do with
the various nonsequiturs you continue with here below
silly of me but i just have to call you on this
& then i will add some more insertions farther below
It is then when our insights into the operations of such organs as
> the IBWC and SOCTUS or of surveying in general can be brought to
bear in
> refining our approximations. In other words, we can try to think
how they would
> think. Of course, if you happen to be within an easy visit to the
supreme
> headquarters of the IBWC (US Section), then you have the advantage
of access to
> information necessary to attain precision.
>
> > > That would be the correct definition of MXUS per the 1970
Treaty,
> > since the
> > > boundary is the living middle of the channel.
> >
> > wait
> > doesnt the treaty finally say mxus is whatever the ibwc says it is
> >
> > thats what we finally have to salute here
> > dont you agree
>
> Well, the IBWC is empowered to determine the "normal flows" and to
apply the
> treaty's specifications to the landscape. It is also directed by
the treaty to
> do surveys of the river boundaries as frequently as it considers
justifiable,
> but at least every ten years, and to record the position of the
boundaries as
> they then exist on maps or aerial photo mosaics. It is these that
you should
> ask to see. They are likely published by the IBWC, and might be
available for
> purchase at minimal cost.
yes yes exactly & finally
& no approximations were ever really necessary
the true road to the true azbcca azbcso chnmtx chcotx conutx & nutatx
runs thru el paso & the ibwc
that is
whenever the next person finally decides to really do any of them
since i dont think it will be me again in this lifetime
hahaha
but someone might
>
> > > > it would be tantamount to the marijuana passport i myself have
> > > > been wanting to create also
> > >
> > > Now, don't get too confident!
> >
> > why
> > what do you mean
>
> I simply meant that you shouldn't overestimate the power of a
letter of
> introduction from the IBWC to the Border Patrol.
>
> > interesting
> > you can see all the way to marker 102 on the topo
> > & 3 unnumbered markers beyond it
> > presumably 103 & 104 & 105
> > but then the nmtx ceases to look geodetic & just seems to follow
the
> > present midchannel
> > perhaps as per the courts specs
> > but this is still just a guess til we actually see the masters
verdict
>
> What we are missing is the Court's 1931 confirmation of the report
of the
> Commissioner who did the survey that the Court ordered done in
pursuance of the
> Special Master's detailed map. It is presumably that Commissioner
who set the
> 105 monuments. The Special Master had reported prior to the
Court's 1927
> decision, which we do have. In it, the Court found, "In the
territory in
> dispute the Rio Grande flows southwardly through a plain of
alluvial and sandy
> bottom land, composed largely of detritus, and bordered on the east
and west by
> ranges of hills. The valley is about four miles wide at the
northern end and
> narrows gradually to a canyon or gorge at the southern end."
yes & it is apparently the reliability of this gorge rather than any
special master or court or map that has pretty much fixed the
southernmost reach of nmtx at a fairly constant midchannel position
everywhere below marker 105
or at least thats my guess
for lack of any known record
but the midchannel per se never really froze in 1850 & it is still
not frozen today really
but must continue to move about with the changing water levels &
prevailing channel width at any given moment
so even if the ibwc gives a precisely fixed geodetic chtxn position
as we believe it will
the actual chnmtx tripoint is probably still subject to a tripointing
stitch in any case
but this stitch is evidently either indeterminate
or else is based
extralegally
on the presently prevailing position of a still evidently ambulatory
midchannel line & nmtxs point upon it
very strange situation
>
> The court went on to explain that the shallow river would often
flood and move
> around all over the plain of detritus. At the very southern end of
the boundary
> stretch, however, the river did not move around in the gorge. The
short gorge
> segment of the boundary was not in dispute in the case. Thus, it
would have
> been addressed by neither the Special Master nor the Commissioner.
The boundary
> through the gorge is the middle of the channel as frozen in 1850,
but since the
> river can't move much there, nobody has ever been bothered by the
lack of
> precision. This would be the section of the river below your
presumed monument
> 105, passing under the two railroad bridges and on to MXUS.
>
> Thus, the position of CHNMTX is defined by two vectors determined
by the IBWC
> and one that has been frozen since 1850, but never precisely
demarcated in a
> formal way.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA