Subject: Re: cnkpru - more pictures
Date: Feb 09, 2004 @ 01:28
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Funny, the decree from 1998 does not mention the 306,9 m from thewhoops
> border marker 1.
> If I follow you line of reasoning, this is becauseno i dont mean this
> the entire line between the two markers (No.1 and No.2) is a triline
> shared by all three states
> , but there is a slight problem andyes i see & agree there is a slight problem
> correct me if I misunderstood something: In art 1. nr.2 is says
> that "... state boundary meeting point of the three countries is
> located on the point where the line delimiting the boundary water
> areas of the three countries intersects the middle line of the main
> channel of the river." To me, this is the actual and factual
> tripoint. At this point, as it says in art.3 nr.1 at the end "...a
> boundary merkar on the state boundary meeting point of the three
> countries, which is located on the water level of the Tumannaja
> river, will not be erected." That's what I meant by getting wet and
> going fishing. The tripoint is on the water level.
> However, on the land both on Korean and Russian-chinese river bank,i agree with nearly all the above
> there are the tripoint markers and that's something else than the
> actual tripoint. The actual tripoint on the water level is located
> on the line between the two tripoint markers no.1 and no.2. There is
> no mentioning about how far is the actual tripoint from the two
> tripoint markers either.
>
> Another thing, and interesting enough is that the border marker 423
> or the first tripoint marker, is still a border marker between China
> and Russia only. The Korea is not to be mentioned on it. This could
> mean as I suggested last time, that this border marker 423 has been
> chosen for convenience purpose in order to delineate the factual
> tripoint on the water level, but not actually giving a territorial
> claim on the boundary line to the Koreans.
> heralded by the erection of tripont marker no.3, where on the onehere is where we begin to differ
> side is written Korea.
> territory. One might guess that the tripoint marker no.3 is placedi dont see any of these guesses as necessary or very likely
> on the line between markers no.1 and no.2 but closer to the river
> bank designating the start of the line dividing the river waters
> between the joint Chinese-korean and Russian. If the tripoint border
> marker no.3 is placed inside Russian territory, then it has to be in
> some angle to the line between the other two tripoint markers.
> Otherwise the tripoint marker no.3 is placed de facto on the Chinese-
> russian border. But again no specification about it in the decree.
> The art 1 nr.1 says something about the main points deciding thei dont see the correctness or even the need for this line of reasoning
> direction of the line. It says that, ...a straight line, running
> perpendicular from boundary marker no.423 on the Russian-Chinese
> state boundary to the line in the middle of the main channel of the
> river in between the two river banks." If the tripoint marker no. 3
> is not on this straight line, then it can not run perpendicular to
> the actual tripoint in the river.
> The line can not be considered as the same as the actual tripoint.i think we must again face the fact with cnkpru that we have already
> None of the treaty parties mention it like this. Art 3. no.1 saysi agree with all this
> that, ...the state boundary meeting point of the three countries
> will be demarcated by three markers...". To me, it does not mean
> that every tripoint marker is the actual tripoint or that the line
> is a point in itself, but that the tripoint markers only demarcate
> the actual tripoint. The demarcation determines the actual tripoint
> on the water level of Tumannja river. Thus, the tripoint markers are
> mathematical, physical and geographical constructs with the sole
> purpose of demarcating the actual tripoint.
>
> Petter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west" <
> > petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > > As I understand it: The border marker 423 is originally Russian-
> > > chinese only, but probably for the convenience of setting up a
> > > borderline which ends in the middle of the river Tumen, this
> border
> > > marker is taken as a starting point (cf. art.1). From this point
> the
> > > line is perpendicular to the Chinese-korean borderline formed by
> the
> > > middle of the main channel of the river Tumen. The waters of the
> > > river behind the borderline going from border marker 423 to the
> > > middle of the river are called "joint boundary water area of
> China
> > > and Korea DPR". So the waters are joint, and it makes it easier
> for
> > > the Korean border guards to shoot at people fleeing the country
> as
> > > long as they are in the river, but once they get on the shore
> they
> > > are in China only. The Chinese-korean borderline goes all the
> way
> > > through the middle of the river channel up to the point where
> > > Russia, China and KoreaDPR meet. Further down the stream of
> Tumen
> > > river continues Russian-korean borderline being placed again in
> the
> > > middle of the course of the Tumen river. We are still talking
> about
> > > waters, no land. The tripoints are placed on both sides of the
> > > river,
> >
> > i figure you must mean the tripoint markers here petter
> >
> > not the tripoints themselves
> >
> > but i agree we are really talking about 2 distinct tripoints here
> > cncnkpru & cnkpkpru
> >
> >
> > however
> > these actual tripoints are simply at the 2 end points of the cnkp
> joint
> > or condo zone cnkpru triline
> >
> > think of it as an ordinary tripoint halved or stretched into a
> triline
> > between 2 semitripoints
> >
> > & one of those semitripoints is marked by monument 1
> >
> > & the other is the unmarked point where the sight line between
> monument
> > 1 & monument 2 crosses the midchannel line
> >
> > so as i understand it
> > marker 1 also serves with marker 2 to witness the entire triline
> > including the unmarked end point & cosemitripoint at midchannel
> >
> > we have encountered something very much like this before with the
> delu
> > condo trilines
> >
> > no biggie
> >
> > technically
> > as was observed then
> > all such trilines are dipunctitrilines
> >
> > or more technically still ditripunctitrilines
> > meaning simply trilines with tripoints at each terminal
> >
> >
> > & i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint zone extends all
> the way
> > to the korean bank
> > nor does it apparently matter to the russians
> > who have no such condo with korea
> > nor does it apparently matter for tripointing &or trilining
> purposes
> >
> > more insertions below
> >
> > but they are standing on the sovereign territories, either
> > > Russia, China or Korea. Art. 4 states that every country is
> having
> > > responsibility for one border marker each. The picture of
> > > bordermarker 3 I've seen here, is Russian responsibility.
> >
> > technically 1 marker is on cncnkpru & 1 is in kp & 1 is in ru
> >
> > >
> > > So, reaching a tripoint here means getting wet and go fishing.
> >
> > not really
> > as explained 1 tripoint is marked & the other is wet
> >
> > From
> > > border marker no.1 on a straight line perpendicular to the
> middle of
> > > the stream of the river Tumen, 306,9 m in to the water. Anyone
> > > should feel pretty safe then :-). Then, still following the
> line,
> > > one should get to the shores of the Korea DPR and hit the border
> > > marker no.2. When still in the water and keeping the line aiming
> at
> > > border marker no. 2, to the right you are still in the joint
> Chinese-
> > > korean joint boundary water area. To the left you are still in
> the
> > > water, but whether Russians and Koreans agreed to something
> similiar
> > > as the chines and koreans, I don't know.
> > >
> > > I'm not clear about why the third border marker has been set up
> on
> > > the Russian territory and whether this border marker is placed
> on
> > > the same borderline drawn between border marker no. 1 (on
> Chinese-
> > > russian border) and no. 2 (in Korea).
> >
> > clearly it is not on the line between markers 1 & 2 but downstream
> >
> > more below
> >
> > This is why the final protocol
> > > from 2002 is still needed.
> > >
> > > Petter
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
> > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > Witness marker 1 (aka CN-RU 423): We know this is
> > > > exactly on the CN-RU boundary and is exactly on the
> > > > point where CN-RU hits the CNKP condo (CN-CNKP-RU).
> > > > So why is CNKP-KP-RU the official "state boundary
> > > > meeting point of the three countries" (article 1,
> > > > section 2 of the treaty in message 12459)?
> >
> > this end of the triline is the official meeting point of the 3
> > countries just as much as the other end of the triline is the
> official
> > meeting point
> > & indeed just as much as the entire triline as a whole is the
> official
> > meeting point
> >
> > isnt that lovely
> >
> > a line is a point
> >
> > & a point has become a line between 2 points
>
>
> > Doesn't
> > > > CN-CNKP-RU have just as much the same tripoint status
> > > > since it is one of the 2 terminal points of the
> > > > CNKP-RU triline?
> >
> > yes
> >
> > > > Also - I am unclear on the condo in this regard: Is
> > > > the CNKP condo the entire river (1 in diagram) or just
> > > > half of the river on the Chinese side (2 in diagram).
> > > > I mean we know the triline only goes out to the middle
> > > > of the main channel of the river, but couldn't a
> > > > CNKP-KP line continue after that?
> >
> > we dont know
> >
> > nor does it actually matter for the purposes of our cnkpru chase
> >
> > > > -Mike
> > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: cnkpru - more
> > > > > pictures
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some more pics (they seem to connect):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p352.jpg
> > > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p081.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > this latter pic appears to be by far the best pic we
> > > > > have
> > > > >
> > > > > & if the fence observed by jesper does indeed mark
> > > > > cnru
> > > > > then cnru marker 1 aka 423 should be on the bank at
> > > > > the end of that
> > > > > fence
> > > > > slightly obscured by the foliage
> > > > > unless that dark dot there near the sand flat is the
> > > > > marker
> > > > > yikes
> > > > >
> > > > > but in any case the triline should run from this
> > > > > cncnkpru point 423
> > > > > perpendicular to the bank & halfway across the
> > > > > channel
> > > > > to the unmarked cnkpkpru tripoint at the other end
> > > > > of the triline
> > > > >
> > > > > does everybody see & get that
> > > > > because i do believe we can visualize all this now
> > > > > for the first time
> > > > >
> > > > > bravissimos all
> > > > > in any case
> > > > > > > Peter S.