thanx
nice
please see inserts
> Our monument is definitively a tripoint monument
> since it has the three
> flags, but could still be symbolic
right
& i agree it is still unclear if the true tripoint is
on the new 3flag marker
just as it was unclear if the true tripoint was on the
old 3flag marker it replaces
also unclear btw if the new tall thin monument
which was installed in july
even survived the great flood in august
haha
> The three flags are painted on trees on each side of
> countries territories
>
(
http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/BordersBGT.htm).
> Would BG allow
> painting of GR flag on BG tree?
well if they are all determined to make the island
into a friendship park
then yes of course anything is possible
regardless of where the true boundaries may fall
but this skirts the greater question of
did bulgaria actually cede half of her half of the
island to greece
& does the east west vista on the island really carry
bggr within it
as the ibs studies suggest
the
protocole des conclusions de la commission de
delimitation de la frontiere greco turque
with detail maps
issued in athens on 3 nov 1926
pursuant to the 1923 treaty of lausanne
may yield the needed clue to this extraordinary border
& tripoint displacement
i mean
if they really did move
> GR & TR are not the best play mates, and so I am
> sure TR would not approve
> GR flag if only BGTR marker
i agree it may be hard to imagine
yet it is not on the turkish half of the island
nor on the turkish half of the marker
so not unthinkable
& they are at least making a show of trying to be
friendly here
> Our TR hosts did not want to be photographed on GR
> side
>
>
>
> Cons:
>
> If No1 is the tp, why does BG put 320?
the 320 series is from the 1921 bgtr demarcation
& we recall perhaps half a dozen of these
including various letter suffixes
on both banks & both islands
but all in a north south line
& all directly marking 1921 bgtr except for 320a on
the south bank
& grtr marker number 1
on the south side of the so called island a
was inserted into that line in 1926
to complement 320a in indirect demarcation of the
midstream tripoint
but some of your maps show this indirect grtr number 1
& others show a different marker number 1
of an unknown series & in any case not the same marker
apparently marking the tripoint directly on kavak
island itself
so lets not confuse these 2 different number ones
neither one of which we have necessarily even seen btw
& lets also not conclude that either one holds the
true tripoint
(local
> ignorance?)
it could be
& we cant rule it out that whatever has occurred may
only be extralegal
while it is widely believed to be legal
at least until we find some real legal basis for the
change
granted
80 years of habitual bulgarian acquiescence alone
could suffice
& we may be thrown back upon that explanation in the
end
but i am not yet ready to acquiesce in it myself
, see
> http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/tp_mon.jpg, the
> photo is taken from GR by
> the way (if true tp). The 320 BG inscription was
> gone in May 2005.
>
> Monument does not look like an official marker
right
& even the new one is a little unusual & therefore
perhaps suspicious
>
> Like on satellite photo, there is clear vista along
> what should be BGGR
> (http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/bggrtr.jpg)
>
> When copying the maps showing Iceland Kavak on
> http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/, the TR officials
> tried to tell us somehow
> they were no good. I got the impression they meant
> not to scale, or
> non-official maps or something like that
>
> We were shown the spot where GRTR enters the river.
>
> The photographed marker appeared to be 320CT. Then
> what happened to 320 Biz
it could have been redesignated replaced destroyed etc
but i say
onward to athens
if only we knew where to look for this protocole
hahaha
end inserts
>
>
>
> Jesper
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Fra: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com] På
> vegne af aletheiak
> Sendt: 4. oktober 2005 00:57
> Til: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Emne: Re: SV: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr
> remonumented
>
>
>
> delicious
> many thanxxx
> & they give me a bright new idea
> for regardless of the various map dates
> they do all together reiterate & underscore the
> already well known fact
> of the extreme shiftiness of all these islands
>
> which could singlehandedly explain how the tripoint
> got out of the river &
> onto dry land
>
> that is
> by pure avulsion
>
> & with no paperwork needed whatsoever
>
> except that
> even in such a case
> bgtr & grtr should still run in a continuous line
> downstream
> following the middle of the former main channel in
> both cases
> which was
> according to their 1919 & 1923 treaties respectively
> about 197 feet south of marker 1 on the south side
> of kavak group island a
> which is the smaller island south of kavak proper
> as some of your maps still rightly show
>
> indeed there is still precisely that turnpoint of
> bgtr showing there on
> several of them
> from off of the 320 monument line & into the
> mainstream
> which is exactly where the treaties & the ibs
> writeups lead one to expect
> the tripoint to be
>
> so i am not quite ready to cry eureka yet
> but we may be stumbling onto something essential not
> previously understood
> here
>
> if only we can somehow explain away this one
> remaining messy detail
> namely
> that the trifinium shown on all your maps is still
> not only a bit too far
> north
> but also at right angles to the orientation the
> treaties say it should have
> per ibs numbers 41 aka grtr & 56 aka bggr
>
> it just led me to notice however that there is a
> small comment in ibs number
> 49
> aka bgtr
> hinting that the tripoint could have been moved
> bilaterally by the grtr
> demarcation
> commission of 1926
>
> so any records that can be found of that party
> may be the next if not the only remaining hope for
> further investigation &
> elucidation
>
> heavy breathing & nearly celebration here
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper
> Nielsen" <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/
> >
> >
> >
> > Maps are not dated, which could have been nice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Last photo show a 320 which we passed on the
> causeway to Kavak.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesper
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > Fra: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com]
> På
> > vegne af aletheiak
> > Sendt: 3. oktober 2005 16:14
> > Til: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Emne: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr remonumented
> >
> >
> >
> > yes please would love to eat em
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, jesniel@i...
> wrote:
> > > I have various TR treaty maps of the tp that I
> can scan.
> > > >-- Original Message --
> > > >To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > >From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > >Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:04:53 -0000
> > > >Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr
> remonumented
> > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ><html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > well ok but cshuro is marked by a ziggurat
> topped by an obeliskoid<BR>
> > > whereas the new bggrtr monument<BR>
> > > thanx to the partial pic youve found<BR>
> > > is still looking almost perfectly pyramidal <BR>
> > > so far <BR>
> > > exactly as was
> > > >reported<BR>
> > > <BR>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com