--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I will reply without inserting. I think that the jumble below
probably inhibits
> communication.
true enough as i wasnt really looking for a closest thing anyway
but only for a real cigar
i mean
in case the vatican cigar likewise proves to be just a very close
thing & no cigar either
for we still seem to have only a category & no sure example yet
in fact even the original description of this possibly nonexistent
category is no longer even attached
so we might now be looking or not looking for practically anything
one more insert tho
> The closest thing to a manmade feature that marks the
boundary within the Rio
> Grande channels is the manmade middle of the channels. It
was the middle line
> that was geometrically specified in the treaty, and the channel
was constructed
> along the line with equal width on each side. Thus, the
manmade feature that
> constitutes the boundary is something of an abstraction, rather
than a tangible
> object.
right
& that is why i would call this a figure
rather than a feature
a feature is a physical tangible object
a figure is an abstraction
the edge of the vatican colonnade is a feature
& the cigar if any will need to be a feature rather than a figure
thanx for all these interesting data & for this multiplication of our
reportage on border arcs too
end insertions
Measurement would be required to find it precisely.
>
> The maps that are attached to and made part of the 1970 treaty
illustrate
> typical cross sections of the various artificial channels to be
built. Each has
> sloped sides that go down from their margins to a flat bottom
that reaches
> across to the sloped side opposite. The channels are
symmetrical on either side
> of their center lines. The dimensions and the ratios of the
slopes vary among
> the channels at different locations. There are no distinct
thalwegs in the
> designs. Only banks are necessary to measure the middle of
the channel, which
> is specified in the treaty as the boundary.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:22 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
>
>
> > 4 insertions too
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > See my four insertions below.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:56 AM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > I, too, would love to know exactly how the Lateran Treaty
of
> > > > 1929 delimited the
> > > > > boundary along and about the colonnade.
> > > > >
> > > > > The MXUS boundary in the Rio Grande's wild segments
is
> > the
> > > > natural middle of the
> > > > > river. In the several artificially rectified and channelized
> > > > segments, the
> > > > > boundary is delimited in the 1970 treaty as a series of
> > straight
> > > > lines and
> > > > > curved arcs, both geometrically described between
> > coordinate
> > > > points . The
> > > > > largest curve is upstream of Hidalgo/Reynosa. It is an
arc
> > with
> > > > a radius of
> > > > > 2,585.30 feet and length of 4,100.07 feet. Yes, this is
an
> > > > underwater boundary,
> > > >
> > > > & yes this would be a manmade
> > > > f i g u r e
> > > > delineating a border
> > > >
> > > > just like the arcs of depa or dzly etc
> > > > except more wet than dry in this case
> > > > as you indicate
> > > >
> > > > however
> > > > i still dont see any manmade
> > > > f e a t u r e
> > > > there yet
> > > > or any feature at all to go with this figure
> > > > tho you did begin by speaking of artificial channels
> > > > as examples of manmade features
> > >
> > > The 1970 treaty promulgated the geometric specifications
of
> > the artificial
> > > channel rectifications to be undertaken, mandated the
> > construction of said
> > > channels at joint expense, and provided for transfers of
> > sovereignty (by IBWC
> > > minutes) upon completion of the works. This was all done.
> > Thus, certain
> > > stretches of the river and boundary were relocated into
> > manmade features
> > > composed of lines and arcs as specified in the treaty.
> >
> > right but no mention of any manmade feature along which
the
> > boundary runs
> >
> > only a manmade feature within which it runs
> >
> > & thus all the difference in the world
> >
> >
> > > > moreover
> > > > what about the ongoing border adjustment regime you
> > > > described around the middle of message 12709
> > >
> > > You refer to the IBWC's periodic reviews of the river to map
any
> > natural
> > > alterations to the middle of the main channel, which is the
> > treaty boundary.
> > > Nature constantly adjusts the boundary by its adjustment of
the
> > river. The
> > > IBWC, by its periodic reviews, is merely updating its maps
to
> > accommodate to the
> > > boundary, not adjusting the bounary to accommodate to the
> > river.
> >
> > nature changes the river & thus the boundary at the same
time
> >
> > & the ibwc records & thereby confirms these changes
> >
> > i follow that
> >
> > but i guess i just dont understand why you say
> > adjusts
> > nor why you say
> > accommodate to
> > & what you mean by these terms
> >
> > nor do i suppose channelized sections are spared from
change
> >
> > but both of these loose ends are probably just incidental
anyway
> >
> >
> > > > does this not apply here also
> > >
> > > The straight and arced artificial channels were designed by
> > hydrologic engineers
> > > to minimize natural accretion and thus stabalize the river
and
> > its mid-channel
> > > boundary. That having been said, the boundary is affected
by
> > whatever
> > > fine-scale evolutions that might occur within the artificial
> > channels.
> >
> > exactly
> >
> > & none of the channelized rivers i have ever seen when low
or
> > dry were discernibly grooved or edged in the center either
> >
> > for such a detail just wouldnt seem to be a necessary part of
> > normal dredging or construction specs
> >
> > but all i have seen were just flat bottomed ditches with
> > meandering trickles & no discernible center lines
> >
> > & i know that doesnt mean you cant possibly have a real
> > manmade boundary edge or groove here
> > but it certainly remains to be seen &or felt if you really do
> >
> >
> > > > still
> > > > whatever it is you are so affirmatively pointing to here
> > > > it must make a pretty even if completely different kind of
sight
> > > > as well as an exemplar of an entirely different sort of rarity
> > > >
> > > > but can we see this or any other such mxus arc on a map
> > >
> > > Oh yes. All of the proposed channel rectifications are
shown
> > on photo-mosaic
> > > maps attached to and made a part of the 1970 treaty. I
have
> > them. Any map or
> > > aerial photo made since the completion of the works would
> > show the arced
> > > artificial channel. The largest artificial arc, which I have
> > previously
> > > described, can be seen as the quarter-circle just below the
> > center of the image
> > > at http://tinyurl.com/2r2wz .
> >
> > thanx
> > very nice
> > & clicking onto the topo shows how much they reshaped it
> > but i still cant imagine why or how anyone would mark its
> > centerline
> >
> > > End of my insertions.
> > >
> > > > end insertion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > not as readily accessible as the Vatican step.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >