good
we are in full sync now
except
or maybe just to further elaborate
what you are identifying as plaques are perhaps not what this commission or i would call
plaques
i would rather call these rectangular thingies on marker 107 something else
like say tablets
as they appear noticeably different from the plaques & are clearly without official insignia
further suggesting that this marker is a not fully tripartite try at tripoint demarcation
but they do apparently have some as yet unknown verbal inscriptions at least
likely even bearing on the very question of the tripoint location at the time of installation
so i hope doug will bring a pencil & write everything down
& a tape measure too
just to measure the distance between the 2 rocks
to learn if the 190 meter guess was closer or the 205 meter guess
er well that last request might be too much to ask in the tropical heat & humidity
also i should probably add by way of self correction
i had had the impression that this marker 107 in the pic is a new replacement marker
but realize now that it isnt really new but just an upgrade of good old 107
which incidentally gives another reason why it is different from the newer ones
end addition
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@w...> wrote:
>
> See my several insertions below.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Tripoint picture: BZGTMX
>
>
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@w...> 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
>
> Okay. I can agree with that. It was only afterward, when I read your
> subsequent post, that I recalled the new BZGT survey that missed this monument
> some couple of hundred meters to the east. My exclamation of ITness was meant
> to celebrate the discovery of a photo of the heretofore elusive Monument 107,
> not so much as to anoint it the tripoint for all time.
>
> >> 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
>
> That could be, but this probably bilateral principal GTMX marker was clearly
> placed where it is because it was intended at the time to be the eastern
> terminus of GTMX, which would be at the BZGTMX tripoint as then understood.
>
> >> 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
>
> Well, one photo does show two adjacent plaqued sides, and the other shows one
> plaqued and one blank side. That accounts for at least three sides of the four
> sides, only two of which are plaqued.
>
> > as i find it & your following inference inexplicable
> > so far
> >
> >> That
> >> would be consistent with the tripoint.
>
> A square monument at a T-shaped tripoint would be expected to be plaqued on
> three sides and blank on one. (The three plaques reading: BZ|MX; MX|GT; and
> GT|BZ.) What we can see is not inconsistent with that. Thus, this mounment, at
> the time of its erection seems to have been intended by whomever as the
> tripoint--in other words IT. If a newer BZGT survey (once ratified) misses it
> to the east and necessitates a stitch, so be it. As I discuss below, I would
> expect that stitch to become part of GTMX, not of BZGT; and I would expect a new
> eastward monument to become the new tripoint, not just a corner. I think we are
> in agreement on that.
>
> > 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 fully agree with your last two lines.
>
> > 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
>
> More precisely, this fascinating PDF is the work of the MEXICAN SECTION of that
> commission and documents its recent work on those segments of GTMX the
> monumentation and maintenance of which are Mexico's responsibility--other
> segments of GTMX being Guatemala's responsibility.
>
> > 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
>
> Yes, and Belize is not mentioned because the recent works involved only
> monumentation and maintenance of GTMX, and not of any Belizean boundary.
>
> > 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
>
> Very well put! It is apparent from this IBS that the 1893 MXUK treaty puts the
> pertinent segment of their boundary on "the meridian of Garbutt's Falls at a
> point due north of the point where the boundary lines of Mexico, Guatemala, and
> British Honduras intersect." This would seem to require BZMX to be in alignment
> with BZGT. [End of insertions.]
>
> > 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
>