very nice
if they ever do pull de facto iljosy down from the golan heights &
restore it to the so called de jure iljosy position as shown here
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/israel/50k/09-36-120-3.jpg
then its elevation would indeed appear destined to return at that
time to about 140 meters below sea level
while you probably also realize it never was terribly de jure at all
but was even way back then just a dressier de facto than usual
& meanwhile your several supposedly trumped caspian sea
trisovereign points may also have evaporated or never were at
http://www.veridian.com/offerings/images/maritime_large.jpg
where their absense could be explained by the halting but
ongoing condo discussions that could yet ditch normal tricountry
points entirely in favor of something fancier
like say a unique ring of minus28m quintidominial tripoints
who knows
conceivably even not entirely wet but on the shoreline
however
all such hypothetical outcomes among possibly others are far
from assured or clear at this time
all of which
together with your palestine observation here
is coincidentally why i said
perhaps we can still
hope
for a trisovereign point below sea level on dry land
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Until and unless the Palestinians acquire statehood, the Dead
Sea is out of the
> running for the lowest tripoint, because only two sovereignties
are involved.
> That would seem to leave the honor to ILJOSY
(Israel-Jordan-Syria)--assuming
> that the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights are ascribed de jure to
Syria. I don't
> know the precise elevation of the tripoint, but the nearby Sea of
Galilee
> is -689 feet (-210 meters). Unless the tripoint is significantly
higher than
> the sea, this should trump the several tripoints in the Caspian
Sea at -92 feet
> (-28 meters).
>
> These elevations are from the National Geographic Society,
1981.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: AT-DE divided mine - deepest
boundary marker?
>
>
> > Ah yes, forgot about that sign you reported at Death
> > Valley, but I enjoyed rereading the tale of this
> > caper.
> > Have we discussed or tried to find the tripoints with
> > highest and lowest elevations?
> > And also what ever happened to the ends of the earth?