please look for insertions below
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
> If I understand correctly (of which I am not
> certain) the north-south line across the island is
> the BGTR boundary. If the tripoint is in the
> channel south of the island, perhaps the visible
> east-west line on the island is a cadastral
> boundary. Even though there seem to be problems
> with the map, the satellite image does not lie.
yes the image doesnt lie
but ones interpretation of anything one sees is always
subject to confirmation
& indeed please also bear in mind
not only are lines on aerial maps not necessarily
evidence of borders
they usually are not evidence of borders at all
so once again lowell
lets not suggest a supposition is a known truth
& once again jesper
lets not mistake a maybe for a must
it seems to me the transverse line across the island
in the aerial view stands at least a chance of being
part of the damlike structure referred to in
http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14439
& the perpendicular line adjoining it also stands at
least a chance of having something to do with the
border gate referred to in
http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14445
& i believe we are still waiting for petter to beam us
up his 200k scale map of all this with possibly more
elucidation of these questions
but in the meantime
it may be worth underscoring
the map swatch we have contains not just this 1 but at
least 3 representations that are at odds with the
normally reliable & only occasionally outdated ibs
studies
more below
> Is
> that an old Soviet map?
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesper Nielsen
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 2:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] GSEEBE: BGGRTR
>
>
> Hm.... Interesting.
>
> But what explains the visible border lines on the
> satellite image?
>
> Was the border redrawn?
>
> Jesper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aletheia kallos
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] GSEEBE: BGGRTR
>
>
> yikes
> i dont believe you will be bored in any case
> but you must read page 7 of the study that goes
> with
> your ibs map
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS041.pdf
>
> it says in contradiction of your detail map
> swatch
> that the tripoint is not at marker 1 but
> actually in
> the river some 196point9 feet due south of
> marker 1
>
> so dont forget to bring a tape measure & compass
> &
> inner tube
>
> it also suggests marker 320n may have been the
> original bgtr marker 320
> for which please also see both ibs studies below
> with the n perhaps just added for north bank at
> the
> time when indirect marker mate 320a was added on
> the
> south bank
> & the third indirect or witness marker
> grtr number 1
> was added on the island
>
> no explanation for 320b & 320e tho
> except that intervisibility is mentioned as a
> feature
> of both bgtr & bggr in the ibs studies
> so that could be why both of these are there
>
> the peculiar marker numbering sequence up to 320
> is
> from the bgtr demarcation of 1921 mentioned on
> pages 2
> & 8 & 10 & 11 of
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/Limitsinseas/IBS049.pdf
> also with a map
>
> this demarcation originally continued with
> marker
> number 321 & well beyond
> indeed some 77 km up the maritsa from this
> island
> along what is now the bggr border
> as mentioned on page 12 of
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS056.pdf
> but was foreshortened by the subsequent
> insertion of
> the tripoint position near this island in 1926
> along with the marker insertions
>
> all of the insertions evidently fall between
> markers
> 320 & 321 of the original bgtr demarcation
> & they are evidently joined on bggr by as many
> as 186
> other insertions also somehow numbered between
> 320 &
> 321
> however improbably
> all per the above links
>
> --- Jesper Nielsen <jesniel@...> wrote:
>
> > Attached closeup of tp topomap + satellite
> image.
> > (The satellite image was provided to me by
> recent
> > Turkish BP member, thanks).
> >
> > Looking in regular road maps this looked like
> a
> > "boring" wet tripoint, but is now for me a
> expected
> > highlight on GSEEBE.
& i am glad it is already a highlight on beepee
& quite an interesting highlight if i may say so
even tho it does very much appear to be wet now
& since boredom is only a lack of interest
i wonder if you dont find wet tripoints boring only
because you lose a certain amount of interest in the
quest for them as soon as you realize that they are
indeed wet & that you too may need to get wet or at
least buoyant in order to actually reach them
for of course if you were still just as interested in
them then you wouldnt be bored & they wouldnt be
boring at all
& we know some members actually prefer wet tripoints
on principle
perhaps because they are more challenging than the dry
monumented ones
or for whatever other reasons
so apparently it is only ones negative beliefs
even in quotation marks
that ever limit ones fun
or set one back in any other way
almost end of inserts
> >
> > Note how the three borders are visible on the
> > satellite image.
> >
> > The system of markers with nos 320 is not
> clear to
> > me. First I though A-B-E-N had to do with
> cyrillic
> > alphabet, but probably not
> >
>
>
(
http://www.inp.nsk.su/~bolkhov/files/fonts/cyr-rfx/sshots/mac-cyrillic.gif).
> > And why does 320A appear to be on the GRTR
> line? No
> > 1 most be on the GRTR line as per this map:
> >
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs41a.php
> >
> > Perhaps we will have more information in May.
> >
> > Jesper
perhaps still more in february yet too
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com