hahahaha etc
for this one is really even funnier than cnpk mike
but it is you who have your brains crossed here
as i will explain at length below
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> You say:
> & 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
> --> But this is not at all accurate. While the
> location of CNKP-KP-RU may not be in question, the
> locations and angles of its vectors certainly are.
wait
there is a tripartite text indicating the vectors of the tripoint are
the thalweg & the sight line between markers 1 & 2
also that the triline extends from this point to marker 1
also that marker 1 itself marks the other end of the triline & thus
itself marks a second tripoint
& finally we have seen a bipartite text that gives the geocoords of
the midriver tripoint
& we have recent news of a second bipartite text that also gives the
geocoords for this point
presumably the same geocoords
thus we apparently have all vectors & confirmed positions for the
triline & both of its terminal tripoints
& thats why i said it this way
nor does it nor i at all disagree with what you have added here below
until my next insertion
> Most people are interested in knowing what the
> tripoint looks like, which country has which percent
> of the tripoint (in terms of angles). In Jack's book,
> he shows three simplified configurations on page iii.
> People like to visualize the point in terms of the
> surrounding territory.
> If you want to say that this is not needed for
> tripointing purposes
i did not say that nor do i want to say that
please read again what i did say
, then:
> 1. We would have no need to talk about tripointing
> stitches since they don't affect the point itself,
> only one of the lines which come together to form the
> point.
> 2. We would also have no need to discuss things like
> which country has the smallest angular slice of a
> tripoint, since only the point matters, not the angles
> of the vectors.
> 3. All of our tries would have to be presented
> without the "extraneous" information. Maps, pitcures,
> etc - only showing 1 pixel centered on the point
> itself, since the border-vectors composing them
> apparently don't matter as you say.
hahahahahaha
it is a funny picture i admit
but it is not what i said nor say
nor what i meant
& you dont really disagree
you only got your brains crossed
hahahahaha
> Additionally, if the condo is the entire river, it
> creates a (right angle) corner of CNKP that would not
> exist if the condo is only half of the river. Corners
> are often talked about in this forum, including by
> you. So unless we can find out the exact dimensions
> of the condo are we won't know if this corner exists
> or not.
again please wait
i believe we do know this corner & point & all its vectors do exist
by virtue of the data i reviewed above
i agree there is a question as to the full size of the cnkp condo
& even a question as to whether it actually exists
but the unknown composition of that known vector you are referring to
here does not actually affect the position of the triline or either
of its end points
it only affects the composition of one of the vectors of one of the
end points
& so to that extent i do agree with you that it may be marginally &
tangentially relevant to part of the triline question
if indeed there proves to be a real condo & a real triline
but of course it will be irrelevant to the tripoint question if not
& again i like & agree with what follows
> --->Yet stitches, relative percentages of tp slices,
> and corners are all discussed here, and it seems to me
> you too have joined in actively on these topics. The
> question of whether or not the CNKP condo encompasses
> the whole river or only half is certainly relevant.
>
> --- 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools