thanx mike
reaching for the new thought
living on the leading edge
my concern was not really with the paint job
& i understand the cross is chiseled into the rock
& i agree
any movement of such a rock seems highly improbable
indeed i imagined it was just a solid projection of bare mountain
but is this not a fact
or yikes could the rock actually have been shifted as well
as mats suggests
which is presumably not the case with most reference markers
btw
but what i was questioning & am wishing to test was nothing
less than the almost unanimous certainty of the obvious fact &
received truth that the cross actually marks the actual cross
it is similar tho not identical to the situation at baarle
until we probed the meaning & bona fides of the marker
a pipe was mistaken for the truth
& before that
it appears the pipe was even mistaken for a pillar stake
by a certified border expert
so i trust you all do at least understand the import of the question
& i dont care if i do get both egg & pie in my face for it
i want to
k n o w
the truth
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Kaufman"
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> We know the coat of paint has been added but I dont think it
would
> have been possible for the x to move since it is chisled into the
> rock. Is there an availible photo of the rock before it was
painted?
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Stavro Blofeld
> <blofeld_es@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > but i will bring my tape measure to be sure
> > > if you havent checked it
> >
> > This is a very interesting question; i. e. is the
> > boundary cross really at the center of the X-mark in
> > the 110-rock on top of Sorgschrofen?
> >
> > As I see it, the following scenario is at least
> > plausible.
> >
> > The border was agreed on in, let's say, general terms
> > in the treaty. The wording was something like this:
> > The boundary cross is at the highest peak of
> > Steinberg.
> > (See http://jungholz.enclaves.org for a memory refresh
> > of the treaty text.)
> >
> > After a while marker 110 was placed at some random
> > spot on or near the "highest peak".
> >
> > More than 150 years passed.
> >
> > Man was given laser measurement equipment, and along
> > with that came an obsessive urge for precision.
> >
> > So, a number of geodetic reference markers were
> > placed, the position of the X-mark was measured, and
> > it's coordinate was entered into the official boundary
> > description.
> >
> > If you are with me, and you agree with me, then thus
> > far we must accept the X-mark as the true cross (pun
> > not intended), since it defined itself.
> >
> > But there is evidence that at least the looks, if not
> > even the shape, of the 110-rock has changed at least
> > once in the past few decades. Then, if it has been
> > shifted, or if a new coat of paint has been applied
> > by, say, not too careful extra workers, *after* it was
> > measured, the position of the cross is in question.
> >
> > There is also the subtle question, raised by "m" as I
> > remember, whether the X-mark or the actual *top* of
> > the 110-rock is the correct spot, but what is said
> > above applies in both cases.
> >
> > My input to the latter disussion would be that there
> > is reason to believe that the X-mark is actually
> > intended to define the spot. I have come to understand
> > that this manner of marking a border is quite common
> > in mountainous areas in central Europe. ATLI, which
> > has been discussed here recently, contains a
> > substantial number of markers cut directly into the
> > rock ("Felsmarken"), as does ATDE. There are also a
> > few at CHIT-Campione, and most likely others
> > elsewhere.
> > However, an amateur measurment, conducted even with a
> > cheap tape measure from some american superstore,
> > should settle this question.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail