Subject: Re: Possible BNCNMYTWVN 5-Country Reef and Obelisk<br/>
Date: Sep 07, 2004 @ 13:55<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="15264.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15268.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic14050.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="15265.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15267.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-643926048">yes we have had this report at least since message 14049<br/>
when i still imagined she was only a 4country reef<br/>
<br/>
see under louisa in alphabetical list of spratlys in the middlebury <br/>
link there<br/>
<br/>
only later did it dawn on me that the bruneian claim to her was <br/>
just as real as the 4 others<br/>
despite its being unique in not acknowledging the reef as dry <br/>
land but only as maritime territory<br/>
<br/>
but i generally prefer my theories as spare & lean as possible<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; <br/>
&lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Each theory is as good as the other.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Do we know for fact that the lighthouse or navigation beacon <br/>
 </span></blockquote>was Malaysian, or<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; is that theory too?<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Lowell G. McManus<br/>
&gt; Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
&gt; From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt;<br/>
&gt; To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
&gt; Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:47 PM<br/>
&gt; Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible BNCNMYTWVN <br/>
 </span></blockquote>5-Country Reef and Obelisk<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; well no need to postulate a greater mystery in order to solve <br/>
 </span></blockquote>a<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; lesser one<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; & i think a single 5country obelisk in the sea is plenty for the <br/>
 </span></blockquote>time<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; being<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; the so called lighthouse or beacon<br/>
&gt; &gt; whether it was mounted atop the obelisk or not<br/>
&gt; &gt; could easily have just been a small reflector or glow type<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; the lawn of my estate here on cream hill is littered with solar<br/>
&gt; &gt; powered night lights comprised of 6inch plastic cubes that <br/>
 </span></blockquote>just<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; stick into the ground<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; & the 2 blocklike forms you have spotted on the reef could <br/>
 </span></blockquote>easily<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; have come from the top of the single known obelisk<br/>
&gt; &gt; the height of which does indeed appear to have been <br/>
 </span></blockquote>reduced<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; as detailed below<br/>
&gt; &gt; by the necessary 15 or 20 percent to account for them<br/>
&gt; &gt; give or take a beacon<br/>
&gt; &gt; & were perhaps shot down by the same chinese gunboat <br/>
 </span></blockquote>that<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; perhaps shot out the light<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; leaving stone markers to claim sovereignty over islets<br/>
&gt; &gt; &or destroying such markers to deny it<br/>
&gt; &gt; has been a fixture thruout the china seas since 1895<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; after malaysia destroyed the chinese marker here<br/>
&gt; &gt; it seems to me<br/>
&gt; &gt; the least china could have done was destroy the malaysian <br/>
 </span></blockquote>light<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; anyway so little for my theory </span></blockquote></div>