ok
never mind
i figured it out
& it seems to me that my arrowhead elevation
situated about 200m west of the dubiously indicated tripoint position
is indeed contiguous with the rising ground to its north rather than isolated from it
& does indeed stand & rise appreciably above the flat overflow lake bed beside it
thanx
very nice
now all we need to do is figure out where the tripoint really is
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> examples of maps depicting kztmuz not as a completely
> arbitrary cardinal tee junction such as might fall
> indiscrimately anywhere
> but as a slightly more wye shaped convergence
> with kztm & tmuz presumably homing in on some landmark
> just there
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/kazakstan_admin96.jpg
> http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kazakhst.pdf
> http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/uzbekist.pdf
>
> &
> comparing the new improved topo more carefully to the
> satpic
> even without regard to the unreliable border
> depictions on them both
> or the peculiar double register of roads many hundreds
> of feet apart
> one of which is actually shown going off the cliff
> oops
> etc etc
> i find the topo isograms seem quite sketchy & at best
> only crudely approximative of the visible topography
>
> for example the elevation on which the tripoint is
> indicated on the topo doesnt appear to be an isolated
> rise on the satpic but rather a shoulder or spur or
> peninsular projection descending from still higher
> ground
>
> no small detail
> even granted we are no longer talking about the
> elevation of the highest ground or tallest building in
> louisiana
> oops again
> but perhaps only a mere 250 feet of indicated altitude
> differential
> in close proximity to the indicated tripoint position
> or the equivalent of say a much more modest skyscraper
> or hilltop climb
>
> but jesper i still dont understand what you mean when
> you say
> > Please turn on terrain, tilt the image and find the
> area flat.
>
> my terrain box comes already checked & so presumably
> turned on in the default setting
>
> so can you explain what would be necessary for me to
> actually get a horizontal look at the terrain upon &
> around my arrowhead projection
> as you seem to suggest one could easily do
> if that is indeed possible in this case
> since i am still not expecting to find my best guessed
> target area flat
>
> i am intrigued to learn how to do this generally
> but especially so for this particular case
>
> --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> > & come to think of it
> > i keep liking my sloping natural arrowhead chink
> > shoulder guess better
> > when i try to think of how this outlandish location
> > might have come to be selected for the tripoint in
> > the
> > first place
> >
> > for kzuz converges from the north along the 56th
> > meridian until it reaches the end of the plateau
> > & then goes slightly over the edge but evidently
> > only
> > as far down the chink as this marvelously coincident
> > natural landmark beach point overlooking the lake if
> > not actually projecting into it as a point of land
> >
> > but tmuz & kztm do not in fact converge with kzuz
> > there exactly at right angles
> > notwithstanding the topo depiction of them along a
> > parallel of latitude
> > as if to form a perfect tee junction
> > for that detail is a totally bogus border depiction
> > i
> > must tell you
> > but rather
> > they converge there as if offhandedly
> > to meet this idealized rendezvous point at whatever
> > slightly odd angles they must
> >
> > better maps show they may both follow geodetic line
> > segments to the trijunction target point
> > but neither of them is a true east west line
> > & they do form a distinct angle by converging at the
> > landmark in this happenchance way
> >
> > & i think it is precisely their slightly unusual
> > angles of convergence that really do point to this
> > arrowhead tip
> > & give away their special relationship to it
> > as they perform & celebrate deliberately what the
> > 56th
> > meridian has done only by chance
> >
> > otherwise kzuz might have continued south thru this
> > wilderness until it really did strike a single
> > continuous tmuz & kztm at right angles
> >
> > for the soviets could just as easily have
> > arbitrarily
> > done it that way as they perhaps really did do it
> > somewhat more sensibly this way
> >
> > or so i would dare to speculate at this point
> >
> > --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
> >
> > > agreed about all of the following
> > > except i would still say the tripoint is not
> > > necessarily within
> > > altho at least partly surrounded by
> > > your relatively flat lacustrine basin
> > >
> > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have gone to Jesper's source, zoomed in, and
> > > > captured a clearer
> > > > version for our interpretation. It is attached.
> > > >
> > > > First, the contours are in feet, not meters.
> > (The
> > > > Map Mart site says
> > > > so.) Note also that the distance scale is in
> > > miles.
> > > >
> > > > The contour interval is 250 feet. On this map,
> > > > contours of 0, 250, 500,
> > > > 750, and 1,000 feet are shown.
> > > >
> > > > Between the 750 and 500 contours (to the
> > northeast
> > > > of the lake, anyway),
> > > > we find the depiction of the escarpment.
> > > >
> > > > Descending from the 0 contour, we find, first,
> > the
> > > > shore of the
> > > > intermittent lake, then the shore of the more
> > > > permanent lake.
> > > >
> > > > Within the northwestern lobe of the intermittent
> > > > lake, we find several
> > > > shoals that rise above the 0 contour (although
> > > they
> > > > are covered,
> > > > incongruously, with the blue stipple indicating
> > > > intermittent
> > > > inundation). The tripoint appears upon the
> > > shoulder
> > > > of one of these
> > > > shoals, just slightly above the 0 contour.
> > > >
> > > > I think that we can conclude that this
> > best-known
> > > > topographic map
> > > > (whatever its possible imprecisions) shows the
> > > > tripoint in a relatively
> > > > flat lacustrine basin.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:37 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes kztmuz is
> > > > reportedly undelineated
> > > > & definitely elusive
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > as you say could not be very much higher
> > > > > please be aware
> > > > > the map if it can be believed shows the
> > tripoint
> > > 2
> > > > > distinct levels above the normal water level
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > recognizably outlined lake
> > > > > &
> > > > > at least some if not all the elevation
> > gradients
> > > > are
> > > > > 250 meters apart
> > > > >
> > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Jesper,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks very much for the three PDF maps of
> > the
> > > > area
> > > > >> and the referral to Google Earth. When
> > Google
> > > > Earth
> > > > >> debuted, I tried it, but it did not work for
> > > me.
> > > > I
> > > > >> tried it again today, and it works great!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think that your PDF maps demonstrate that
> > the
> > > > lake
> > > > >> in the tripoint depression is variable in
> > level
> > > > and
> > > > >> size over time or season, flooding the
> > tripoint
> > > > at
> > > > >> times. Since this appears to be the case,
> > the
> > > > >> tripoint could not be very much higher in
> > > > elevation
> > > > >> than the more regularly wet lakebed farther
> > > > >> southeast.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lowell G. McManus
> > > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> From: Jesper Nielsen/Borderbase
> > > > >> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:47 PM
> > > > >> Subject: SV: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes
> > kztmuz
> > > > is
> > > > >> reportedly undelineated & definitely elusive
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No fancy results of terrain (or 3d) to show
> > > as
> > > > the
> > > > >> entire areas is very flat. The tripoint
> > itself
> > > is
> > > > at
> > > > >> water level at 0m and the surroundings do no
> > go
> > > > >> higher than 160 meters.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But please learn to use the free Google
> > > Earth,
> > > > >> downloadable at http://earth.google.com ,
> > > > yourself.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jesper
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Borderbase - your online guide to
> > > international
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>