Truce. I will try to get the proof.
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From: "bjbutlerus"
>
> >Sorry if I made you feel insecure.
>
> & silly of me not to understand why you think in these terms
> for i would rather be silly than sorry insecure etc
>
> & it is of course ones own thought that primarily makes one feel
> not anothers
>
> m
>
> & you are the accredited geologist here
> so i am listening to you closely about all that loam
> for i am only a punctologist
>
> but yes please do give me the proof
>
> >
> >The facts from BUS&SS that you mention are the very ones I am using in
> >my hypothesis. We have a difference of opinion as to whether the Bois
> >de Sioux could produce a meander of approximately 450 feet over the
> >course of 110 years (or less, depending when the river was
> >channelized). The soil in that area is loamy and not particularly
> >resistant, so I think a meander of that size would be quite possible.
> >Further evidence is provided by the other meanders north and south of
> >the one in question. The pattern is unmistakably that of a meandering
> >river.
> >
> >But are right about needing further information to reach a conclusion.
> > I am trying to get some details about where the river flowed just
> >prior to being straightened.
> >
> >BJB
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > brian
> > > i know you have offered this opinion before
> > > nor did i disagree out loud a second time by offering these new
sources
> > > because you already heard me once
> > > so this time i will only note 2 facts from bus&ss p4f
> > >
> > > 1
> > > when bed & channel are changed by the natural & gradual processes
> >known as
> > > erosion & accretion the boundary follows the varying course of the
> >stream
> > >
> > > 2
> > > if the stream from any cause natural or artificial suddenly leaves
> >its old
> > > bed & forms a new one
> > > by the process known as avulsion
> > > the resulting change of channel works no change of boundary
> > > which remains in the middle of the old channel tho no water may be
> >flowing
> > > in it
> > >
> > >
> > > now i believe a stream of this small size couldnt possibly have
> >accreted
> > > anywhere near so much as you believe it has
> > > namely several times its own width
> > > even in these 11 decades
> > >
> > > if streams could routinely sneak around that way they wouldnt make
> >very good
> > > boundaries
> > > & accretion would be a terrible problem
> > > which it generally isnt
> > >
> > > yet somehow usgs has gotten the idea that mnndsd has moved
> > > & this cant be entirely ignored or poopooed until we know for sure
> >why they
> > > think this
> > > but in the meantime i think they probably mistook an avulsion or
> >work of man
> > > for an accretion
> > >
> > > remember
> > > except for only the very minor inching of accretions
> > > only a supreme court decision or act of congress could actually make
> >the
> > > tripoint move
> > >
> > > so i continue to think mnndsd will be found basically unmoved
> > > & moreover since the witness rock pinpoints it
> > > this tripoint might be uniquely empowered to withstand even
accretion
> > > & thus remain absolutly unmoved even despite accretion
> > >
> > > in any case it will be interesting to see how far the 9 chains fall
> >from the
> > > thalweg today
> > > & then we can see what there is to argue about
> > > probably very little
> > > because tho i myself reached & identified this usgs mnndsd position
> >first i
> > > still just cant see it as even being worth talking about
> > > unless substantiated by something real
> > >
> > > m
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
> > > >discovered
> > > >Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:31 -0000
> > > >
> > > >Except, of course, for the unratified means of erosiion and
> > > >accretion. I still like the hypothesis that MNNDSD moved gradually
> > > >from the point 9 chains east of the nearby witness monument to the
> > > >position shown on the topo map (or thereabouts) and was then frozen
> > > >at that position by the man-made avulsion of straightening and
> > > >leveeing the river. A possible discrepancy would occur if the topo
> > > >map was not made at the time the river was rechanneled (a likely
> > > >discrepancy). We really need to see the maps that were used during
> > > >the construction project. Also, this hypothesis leads to an
infinite
> > > >number of paleoMNNDSD points along the 9-chain line segment east of
> > > >the witness monument.
> > > >
> > > >BJB
> > > >
> > > > > if you are searching for a particular topic such as mnndsd for
> > > >example then
> > > > > you can simply scan the list & see that the court at least has
> > > >never ruled
> > > > > on any of the 3 interstate boundaries that terminate there at
> > > >mnndsd
> > > > > & thus can conclude that if any change has occurred in the
mnndsd
> > > >position
> > > > > since its creation it would have had to have been approved
by the
> > > >only other
> > > > > possible means of ratification
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > > http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx