& the new tripoint marker
if not the entire flood prone tripoint marker island
if they really are tripartite & if they survived the previous flood
are now taking another & bigger hit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4806370.stm
the attached picks up the state of the try from last october
in message 18458
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>