Subject: re was bggrtr remonumented & now washed away again too
Date: Jun 13, 2006 @ 05:18
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next
Prev Post in Time Next
>previous flood
> & the new tripoint marker
> if not the entire flood prone tripoint marker island
> if they really are tripartite & if they survived the
> are now taking another & bigger hitoctober
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4806370.stm
>
> the attached picks up the state of the try from last
> in message 18458kallos <aletheiak@> wrote:
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia
> >is
> > 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
> > on the new 3flag markerthe
> > just as it was unclear if the true tripoint was on
> > old 3flag marker it replacesside of
> >
> > also unclear btw if the new tall thin monument
> > which was installed in july
> > even survived the great flood in august
> >
> > > The three flags are painted on trees on each
> > > countries territories(http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/BordersBGT.htm).
> > >
> >
> > > Would BG allowcarry
> > > 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
> > bggr within itborder
> >
> > as the ibs studies suggest
> > the
> > protocol 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
> > & tripoint displacementGR
> >
> > 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
> > > sideon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > the south banknumber 1
> >
> > & 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
> >marker
> > & others show a different marker number 1
> > of an unknown series & in any case not the same
> >btw
> > 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
> > & lets also not conclude that either one holds themay
> > true tripoint
> >
> > (local
> > > ignorance?)
> >
> > it could be
> > & we cant rule it out that whatever has occurred
> > only be extralegalthe
> > while it is widely believed to be legal
> > at least until we find some real legal basis for
> > changethe
> >
> > granted
> > 80 years of habitual bulgarian acquiescence alone
> > could suffice
> > & we may be thrown back upon that explanation in
> > endwas
> > 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
> > > gone in May 2005.along
> > >
> > > 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
> > > what should be BGGRofficials
> > > (http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/bggrtr.jpg)
> > >
> > > When copying the maps showing "Iceland Kavak" on
> > > http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/, the TR
> > > tried to tell us somehowmeant
> > > they were no good. I got the impression they
> > > not to scale, orriver.
> > > non-official maps or something like that
> > >
> > > We were shown the spot where GRTR enters the
> > >Then
> > > The photographed marker appeared to be 320CT.
> > > what happened to 320 Bizetc
> >
> > it could have been redesignated replaced destroyed
> >tripoint
> >
> > but i say
> > onward to athens
> >
> > if only we knew where to look for this protocol
> > 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
> > > got out of the river &line
> > > 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
> > > downstreamin
> > > following the middle of the former main channel
> > > both casesrespectively
> > > which was
> > > according to their 1919 & 1923 treaties
> > > about 197 feet south of marker 1 on the southside
> > > of kavak group island aproper
> > > which is the smaller island south of kavak
> > > as some of your maps still rightly showof
> > >
> > > indeed there is still precisely that turnpoint
> > > bgtr showing there onnot
> > > 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
> > > previously understoodstill
> > > here
> > >
> > > if only we can somehow explain away this one
> > > remaining messy detail
> > > namely
> > > that the trifinium shown on all your maps is
> > > not only a bit too farfor
> > > 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
> > > further investigation &nice.
> > > 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
> > > >remonumented
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >jesniel@i...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yes please would love to eat em
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > wrote:I
> > > > > I have various TR treaty maps of the tp that
> > > can scan.<BR>
> > > > > >-- 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
> > > > > so far <BR>but can still be found if anyone is interested
> > > > > exactly as was
> > > > > >reported<BR>
> > > > > <BR>
> > >
> > === message truncated ===