right
& all as previously noticed & noted
but still no clear explanation of why the arcs or circumferences
which the border doesnt follow are even mentioned in the
alignments at all
why such gratuitous geometrical figurations for reference only
when it would have been far easier to make reference to some
physical object &or straight line distance
as they do everywhere else
& we have just been calling arcs what they call circumferences
so there are not really 2 different things needing distinction here
so unless i have misunderstood
you are simply restating the enigmatic texts
but not really resolving their mysteries
not that they absolutely need to be resolved tho
the writers could have been just as confused as they seem to us
& perhaps the only way to fully resolve the confusion would be to
match all the marker positions with all the alignments
& then see if we have anything left over
hahahahaha
but i am not suggesting we drive ourselves so crazy as that
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> 36. No since the border only runs on a tangent to the
> circumference and then again a straight line in 37.
> It never runs along the circumference and there is no
> arc. The Grand Bete circle is used for reference to
> specify the turnpoint, and the border does not run
> along this circle.
>
> 49. It just runs along the line that is tangent to the
> Lusi 3.5 km circle, but again does not ride an arc of
> the circle.
>
> 54. Just following the tangent from one circle to
> another. AKA straight line segment between two arcs
> (53 and 55).
>
> 58. Just follows tangent from Kankali circle to
> Gusin-Sura circle without riding an arc of Gusin-Sura.
>
> 59. It follows the tangent from Gusin-Sura circle to
> Daku circle from point of intersection with the
> tangent in 58 to the circumference of the Daku circle
> (an arc of which it rides in 60).
>
> The 5 paragraphs are describing straight line
> segments. The three extra circles only serve as
> references from which to draw straight lines. So we
> are still at 10 arcs: Under Alignment section - 26,
> 33, 35, 42, 44, 47, 53, 55, 57, 60.
>
> --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> > as mentioned
> > i couldnt be sure
> > & on closer examination i still cant
> > because the text occasionally varies its formulaic
> > description of
> > the arcs from one example to the next
> > & evidently incorporates several geometric
> > conundrums as well
> >
> > what i can see is
> > there are in all 13 different arcs mentioned
> > in a total of 15 different numbered paragraphs
> > including your mentioned 10 paragraphs plus 36 49 54
> > 58 & 59
> >
> > which may or may not add to your count of 10 border
> > arcs
> >
> > i agree there could be as few as 10 arcs that the
> > bjng border
> > actually follows
> >
> > but in any case
> > i dont see why they would even have been mentioned
> > if the
> > border isnt supposed to follow them
> >
> > can you perhaps positively dispose of any or all 3
> > odd men out
> > from the mentioned 13
> >
> > just to keep track
> > we have in sequence the following 13 villages as
> > centers
> > with radii in km
> >
> > okuta 8 & a half
> > guri 4
> > yashikira 8
> > grand bete 4
> > kenumbe 4
> > besi 8
> > gauzhi 3 & a half
> > lusi 3 & a half
> > naganzi 4
> > kade 4
> > kankali 5
> > gusin sura 4
> > daku 5
> >
> >
> >
> > & about your map
> > i dont know what the mapmaker was doing or showing
> > there
> >
> > perhaps a temporary question or situation during
> > wwii
> >
> > i think modern dztn is the dash & dot line
> > not the black dash dash line
> >
> > & of course the other convergents
> > lytn & dzly
> > are shown by the crosses
> >
> > & i cant account for any of the other lines
> > but assume they are irrelevant to finding the
> > tripoint
> >
> > the only presently outstanding question i am aware
> > of in this
> > vicinity is probably too small to be shown on this
> > map
> > namely whether dztn meets the arc at its northeast
> > terminal
> > or subdivides the arc 2km counterclockwise from
> > there
> >
>
http://home.worldonline.dk/jesniel/border/african_tripoints.htm#d
> > zlytn
> >
> > so as i understand it
> > only 2 possible tripoint positions are on this arc
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > BJNG - Ok by my count I get 10:
> > >
> > > Under Alignment section - 26, 33, 35, 42, 44, 47,
> > 53,
> > > 55, 57, 60
> > > Which are the other one or two?
> > >
> > > Also: On http://www.manntaylor.com/FtSaintM.jpg -
> > The
> > > solid green arrow almost points right to DZLYTN.
> > What
> > > boundary is the hollow green arrow pointing to?
> > > Currently this must be all in DZ. And the line
> > from
> > > the south - what is this? It would divide
> > territory
> > > which is currently all in Libya. How many TPs
> > > (including ghost points) can be on this one arc?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > please look for several insertions
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > > > Kaufman
> > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > 1. DZLYTN
> > http://www.manntaylor.com/FtSaintM.jpg
> > > > > (this could be DZLY and LYTN or just DZLY as
> > per
> > > > msg.
> > > > > 13465)
> > > >
> > > > correct & we still dont know which is true
> > > > so you are right to keep counting it or them as
> > > > either 1 or 2
> > > > borders
> > > > but this is apparently only a single sweep of
> > arc in
> > > > any case
> > > >
> > > > > 2. DZLY
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs1
> > > > b.php
> > > > > 3. LYNE
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs2.
> > > > php
> > > > > 4.-15. BJNG (12 of these?)
> > > >
> > > > i still cant be sure
> > > > but the following text seems to indicate either
> > 11
> > > > or 12
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS091.pdf
> > > > > 16. NENG
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS093.pdf
> > > > > (but not evident)
> > > >
> > > > it is evident in the above text
> > > > but i think we just havent yet found a good
> > enough
> > > > map
> > > >
> > > > > 17.-??? MXUS (msg. 13937; how many are
> > there?)
> > > >
> > > > unknown
> > > > but i believe only 1 has been reported so far
> > > > & suspect the 1970 mxus treaty will reveal all
> > > > if there are any others
> > > >
> > > > > SO,
> > > > > We can't put a firm number on it. Depends on
> > 3
> > > > > variables:
> > > > > 1. Where DZLYTN falls. If there is a short
> > LYTN
> > > > we
> > > > > have 18 not 17.
> > > > > 2. Also, do we know 12 for BJNG? So it would
> > be
> > > > more
> > > > > or less if not exactly 12.
> > > > > 3. And how many more arcs for MXUS on the
> > > > channelized
> > > > > Rio Grande?
> > > > > I am not yet counting ITVA since I think here
> > we
> > > > would
> > > > > be talking about features (not figures) which
> > can
> > > > not
> > > > > be perfectly geometrically true arcs.
> > > >
> > > > true
> > > > & other reasons not to count any of the itva
> > curves
> > > > are
> > > > that they are elliptical rather than circular
> > > > & that their total number is so highly debatable
> > > > amounting to either 1 or 3 or 5 or even more
> > > > depending on point of view
> > > >
> > > > what a mess
> > > > & good idea to sidestep it
> > > > on any grounds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so
> > > > we have
> > > > by this exact count
> > > > at least 16 international border arcs
> > > > but still perhaps as many as 18
> > > > or more
> > > > if more are found
> > > >
> > > > & they are evidently situated on 6 different
> > borders
> > > > & 1 tripoint
> > > >
> > > > thanx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > of course some wag will now come along to remind
> > us
> > > > that all
> > > > small & great circle arc borders
> > > > including every single segment between
> > intervisible
> > > > markers
> > > > are technically border arcs too
> > > >
> > > > so we should add an extra zillion or 2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > end insertions
> > > >
> > > > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > arif
> > > > > > i too believed in this arc report about
> > > > easternmost
> > > > > > gmsn
> > > > > > & may even have been responsible for
> > starting
> > > > the
> > > > > > rumor about it
> > > > > > but i have been unable to substantiate it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this border is set at a fixed distance from
> > the
> > > > > > river on both sides
> > > > > > presumably from both its banks rather than
> > from
> > > > its
> > > > > > thalweg
> > > > > > just like the manh state line is offset from
> > the
> > > > > > merrimack
> > > > > > except doubly so
> > > > > > as you probably also realized
> > > > > > & can see here
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/gambia_pol88.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > however
> > > > > > as beguilingly arclike as all this may seem
> > > > > > such a regime would not actually presuppose
> > any
> > > > true
> > > > > > arcs at all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > except
> > > > > > i would agree
> > > > > > conceivably a single one centered at the
> > > > headspring
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > however
> > > > > > the source of the gambia river is not in
> > gambia
> > > > > > but in senegal
> > > > > > as you can also see in the above map
> > > > > > & therefore the simple offset regime couldnt
> > > > project
> > > > > > such a
> > > > > > simple terminal arc sector
> > > > > >
> > > > > > only by varying the apparent regime &
> > reducing
> > > > it to
> > > > > > a single
> > > > > > offset center point in the middle of the
> > river
> > > > > > could such a final true arc have been
> > produced
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also the map doesnt show any such terminal
> > > > rounding
> > > > > > or bulge
> > > > > > as one would expect in such a case
> > > > > > but quite the contrary
> > > > > > something more like a foreshortening or
> > > > truncation
> > > > > > of the basic regime
> > > > > > & indeed it makes the cutoff point look
> > quite
> > > > > > arbitrary & artificial
> > > > > > & somehow distinctly at odds with the basic
> > > > offset
> > > > > > regime
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so at this point i think the existence of an
> > arc
> > > > on
> > > > > > gmsn hasnt
> > > > > > been & probably wont be demonstrated
> > > > > > & was just a wishful thought & misconception
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > first place
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mind you
> > > > > > i dont actually know how the gmsn border
> > does
> > > > > > accomplish this
> > > > > > remarkable turnabout at its east end if not
> > in
> > > > some
> > > > > > approximation of an arc or arcs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & i can still imagine how it might somehow
> > > > involve a
> > > > > > true arc or 2
> > > > > > based at some known terminal cross section
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > river
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but i dont believe there is any text that
> > > > specifies
> > > > > > to this effect
> > > > > > nor any map that suggests it
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > meanwhile
> > > > > > i have scoured the ghost frgb lines of the
> > > > period
> > > > > > & have discovered nothing new
> > > > > > so our world class border arc census is
> > again
> > > > > > stalled
> > > > > > at a top count of about 20 now & perhaps
> > forever
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Arif
> > Samad
> > > >
> > > > > > <fHoiberg@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > Not sure, but isn't there some (at least
> > one
> > > > arc)
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the border of Senegal and Gambia. As far
> > as I
> > > > > > > thought, the Easternmost point is directly
> > > > east of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Center of the arc in that border.
> > > > > > > Arif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free
> > > > storage!
> > > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB
> > messages!
> > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
> > providers!
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail