--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
lgm@...> wrote:
> That's it!
i would say not that thats it
necessarily
but that that now marks a position that was at least
formerly & widely believed to be it
> Notice how monument 107 on page 17 is much larger
> and of different design than
> the standard GTMX monuments.
my guess about this is
the difference in size & design has to do with the
difference between what they are calling principal &
intermediate gtmx markers
rather than a difference between gtmx markers as such
& a bzgtmx marker
> From the two photos,
> we can say that it has
> plaques on two adjacent sides (probably three) and
> lacks any on one side.
perhaps we can say that
or will eventually be able to
but will you first explain this more clearly
as i find it & your following inference inexplicable
so far
> That
> would be consistent with the tripoint.
i would say
consistent with your notion of the tripoint so far
but it remains to be seen if belize really has signed
on to this marker in any way or ever will
i dont say it is impossible
because there is still a chance that bzmx for which
there is no known demarcation will eventually
terminate at this gtmx marker 107 rather than at the
new bzgt terminal rock 200m east of there
but please note especially that mexico has agreed in
principle to the new tripoint location
& moreover that even tho this pdf is the work of a
bzgtmx border commission
the bzgtmx tripoint per se is not referred to anywhere
in it
& seems rather to be assiduously avoided if anything
& indeed is as conspicuous in its absence from the
text as belize is from the maps
which almost kiss her & the tripoint too
yet ignore them
also please note in the following ibs study
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS161.pdf
that it is the meridian of garbutts falls on bzgt that
delimits the geodetic segment of bzmx
& it was just this meridian that was corrected in the
new bzgt alignment
& which gtmx marker 107 formerly marked everyones best
guess of
but no longer does
so for all these reasons i believe we are here still
between a tripoint position that never really was &
another that is far more probable & yet still doesnt
legally exist either
for further clarification
please see also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/19187
> Altogether,
> this is a fascinating
> document.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Murray" <doug@...>
> To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <boundarypoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:36 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Tripoint picture: BZGTMX
>
>
> > Hello All:
> >
> > I think I have found a picture of the
> Belize-Guatemala-Mexico tripoint.
> >
> > The following PDF discusses work along the
> Mexico-Guatemala border and has a
> > number of pictures, including two of monument #107
> (scroll to page 17).
> >
> >
>
http://www.sre.gob.mx/cilasur/Assets/Images/informe2003.pdf
> > or http://tinyurl.com/dvf6z
> >
> > And then, on another Government of Mexico site, a
> map of Campeche shows the
> > Mexico-Guatemala border terminating at the Belize
> border, at Monument #107.
> >
> > http://dgp.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/Atlas/campeche.pdf
> >
> > The area is also shown in the Quintana Roo map,
> but without the monument being
> > marked:
> >
> > http://dgp.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/Atlas/qroo.pdf
> >
> > So, is this photo of the actual BZGTMX tripoint?
> Or do I have to go to Belize
> > (actually I am, March 20th).
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > Doug Murray Productions/Border Films
> > sounds+images+words
> > Vancouver, BC Canada
> > +1.604.728.1407
> >
> > IMAGES: http://www.flickr.com/photos/borderfilms/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com