key largo again
good point brian
it was nagging me too so i also considered the linearity you mention
tho i called my version of this absurdity a triline
despite the absence of any associated condo area in this case
& saw it as a 2way hinge projecting alternately eastward from vtse or
westward from nhsw depending on the momentary position of the nhvt low water
mark on the bank
sort of like the boca chica hinge at mxuse but pointless
since it would never rise or fall but only run lengthwise
but i was fortunately rescued from such escherian projections by the
realization that a work of man here
namely the dam & lock just downriver
has permanently frozen nhvt there at the mud turtle
or practically there for all anybody can tell
& you can also see this process more vividly on the usgs topo quads for
almstn where a similar dam similarly suspends any further migration of the
state lines
m
passing thru marathon last nite i did in fact see not only the czech mig but
a whole assortment of fighter jets for hire now
so it is an embarassment of riches already
but i still think i will stick with my favorite mig plaything
if only for sentimental reasons anyway
>From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
>discovered
>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:00:13 -0000
>
>Thanks for the twingling.
>
>The only comment I have is about MANHVT. It does seem that the
>tristate marker would pin the location, but what does the boundary
>then look like if the Connecticut were to meander? Would the boundary
>follow the right bank except for a singularity, or linearity, at
>MANHVT? We might need more legal expertise because I think these
>cases go beyond the limited description in BUS&SS. And, by the way,
>this exemplifies why I did not pursue a law career, aside from the
>fact that I hate proof-reading.
>
>BJB
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > additional comments intertwingled below
> >
> > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
> > >discovered
> > >Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:34:54 -0000
> > >
> > >Well, I am assuming the man-made avulsion required to rechannel the
> > >river was the only avulsion in the relevant time-frame. Either a
> > >natural or man-made avulsion would leave a [small] horseshoe lake,
> > >but these could be filled in to make plowing easier, etc. so you
>are
> > >right, we don't know whether other, natural avulsions occurred.
> > >But...
> > >
> > >I received a phone call from the St. Paul USACE office today and
>they
> > >have no less than three people tracking down historical maps and
> > >hydrographic data for for this question. They seemed genuinely
> > >interested in helping me find an answer. I am supposed to hear
>more
> > >next week but it is encouraging so far.
> >
> > that is wonderful
> > i do not poopoo
> > all the new data will be delicious
> > but in the absence of the full chronology of the life of the river
>here
> > will the usace data be as definitive as longstanding local land
>office
> > practice
> > whatever that might be
> > for i think i myself will go north old man for that
> > next chance i get
> >
> > >
> > >Of course this MNNDSD problem opens up the whole legal arena with
> > >questions like:
> > >
> > >How rapidly must a river change course for it to be considered an
> > >avulsion?
> >
> > i think it must actually jump out of its bed
> >
> > >
> > >If the river channel changed gradually and the boundary with it, but
> > >nobody explicitly noticed it or cared about it, then the river was
> > >relocated back to its original location, would the boundary
>actually
> > >be stranded, or would the time spent meandering be pinched off into
> > >some other universe and the boundary remain as it was originally?
> >
> > i like this alternative universe thesis but see below
> >
> > >
> > >Does the existence of the initial monument (9CE) mitigate the
>meander
> > >rule? After all, many river boundaries have now been marked with
> > >monuments near the shore specifically to pin down the boundary and
> > >eliminate changes due to meanders (MXUS is a good example).
> >
> > well i did just say i think this may set a rare exception even to
>the rule
> > of accretion
> > if no other hard data emerge
> >
> > the problem with the idea tho is what to do about the accretion
>principle
> > elsewhere on the river than just at the tripoint
> > oops
> > so exception very probably overruled i think
> >
> > a likelier exception it might create tho is that it might restart
>the
> > calendar in 1891
> > if there are no hard data between 1858 & 1891 as i surmise
> > but i still think that couldnt occur except by adjudication
> > since restarting time isnt really the legally correct way to proceed
> >
> > >
> > >If land-based witness monuments override channel boundaries, must
> > >this be stated explicitly or is it the default?
> >
> > i think it follows from the above that they must be explicit
> >
> > >
> > >What does this mean for MANHVT? Did damming the Connecticut raise
> > >the river and extend NH's reach or does subterranean monument pin
>the
> > >location?
> >
> > there you have an actual tristate marker rather than only a
>witness rock
> > so i think no change is possible at manhvt
> >
> > the thing i keep coming back to at mnndsd tho is that the usgs topo
>position
> > 80 feet east of the witrock may well be correct
> > but we just have to figure out how they got to it
> > & whether the local land offices are buying into it
> >
> > otherwise 9ce east &or the present thalweg position
> > if the 2 are even discernibly different
> > are looking better
> >
> > m
> >
> > intertwinglement ends here
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >If you are heading to Key West, please let me know if there is
>still
> > >a tin shack called the Shrimp Dock that still serves good beer-
> > >steamed shrimp. And I hope you find JC. Please pardon any typos
>-
> > >too lazy to proofread.
> > >
> > >BJB
> > >
> > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > ok
> > > > but why do you think usace or anyone for that matter would even
> > >know which
> > > > avulsion was the first avulsion since damn
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to
>bus&ss
> > > > >discovered
> > > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:49:39 -0000
> > > > >
> > > > >I had did not make a distinction between the DAMN line and the
> > > > >MNND/MNSD line because they are equivalent, following the Bois
>de
> > > > >Sioux's meanders. The first avulsion froze the boundary. I am
> > > > >proposing that the first avulsion was caused by the USACE and
>froze
> > > > >the boundary at the position indicated on the topo map.
> > > > >
> > > > >BJB
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to
> > > > >bus&ss
> > > > > > >discovered
> > > > > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 02:41:30 -0000
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Regarding meanders, avulsions, etc. evidently I am not
> > >describing
> > > > > > >something clearly enough. It is actually the core of my
> > >argument
> > > > >so
> > > > > > >if it is not clear why erosion followed by avulsion would
>have
> > > > >changed
> > > > > > >the boundary, then something is wrong in my explanation.
>Let me
> > > > >try
> > > > > > >again and pardon me if this is all repetition. I propose
>the
> > > > > > >following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >At the time the 9CE witness monument was set, the Bois de
>Sioux
> > > > > > >midchannel was 594 feet east of the monument, the exact
>course
> > >of
> > > > > > >the river at that time is not known except for that point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ok i am following you so far
> > > > > > but please let me butt in here
> > > > > > because i was still operating from your earlier hypothesis
> > > > > > which began i thought correctly with the damn line of 1858
> > > > > > when there were neither nd nor sd but only plain dakota &
> > >minnesota
> > > > > > or in other words 33 years before this ndsd survey you are
>now
> > > > >beginning
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > which produced the 9ce measurement
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so there is that question still hanging
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but i believe the right starting questions should be
> > > > > > can we find & indeed has anyone ever found the 1858 bois de
> > >sioux
> > > > >damn line
> > > > > > & if so can we then follow or have they then followed the
>life
> > >of
> > > > >the bois
> > > > > > de sioux along the latitude of the 1891 witness monument
>through
> > > > >its
> > > > > > accretions from 1858 until its first avulsion whether
>natural or
> > > > >artificial
> > > > > > froze it somewhere
> > > > > > & can we find or have they found that point
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for that could well be what the usgs topo quad is
>indicating for
> > > > >mnndsd
> > > > > > or it could also be what someone merely thought was true but
> > > > >really wasnt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & if that point cannot really be found
> > > > > > as i surmise
> > > > > > then we must begin from the starting point you are now
>working
> > >from
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but i believe some of the difficulty is that our hypotheses
>have
> > > > >been
> > > > > > meandering about as much as the river
> > > > > > so let me wait for your confirmation or clarifications on
>these
> > > > >points above
> > > > > > before i proceed with the rest of your explanation below
> > > > > > for i have again run out of time
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanx
> > > > > > m
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Over the next 100 years or so meandering occurred. This
>starts
> > > > >as a
> > > > > > >shallow bend in the river. Waterflow is strongest on the
> > >outside
> > > > > > >bank of the curve. It is called the "cut bank" because
>erosion
> > > > > > >occurs most rapidly here. Waterflow is slowest on the
>inside
> > >bank
> > > > > > >and sediment accumulates here. The process is
>self-magnifying
> > >and
> > > > > > >eventually results in a very distended meander shaped like
> > > > >Kentucky
> > > > > > >Bend. I hypothesize that the river had meandered into a
> > > > >configuration
> > > > > > >consistent with the USGS map at the time that map was
>made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Leveeing often involves straightening to increase flow and
> > >reduce
> > > > > > >lateral erosion, so I am guessing the river was
>straightened by
> > > > > > >cutting off the meander. I believe this falls into the
> > >category
> > > > >of a
> > > > > > >man-made avulsion. This activity, therefore, would not
>have
> > > > >changed
> > > > > > >the boundary. The boundary would have been stranded at
>the
> > >apex
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >the meander.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Since the area adjacent to the river is good bottom land,
>it
> > >seems
> > > > > > >likely that the old riverbed would have been graded flat to
> > > > >accomodate
> > > > > > >farm equipment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But this is all speculation and will require additional
>data
> > >from
> > > > >the
> > > > > > >USACE to verify.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >BJB
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
>wrote:
> > > > > > > > key largo fl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanx brian
> > > > > > > > & more below
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" I have sent a fairly detailed
>request to
> > > > >the US
> > > > > > >Army
> > > > > > > > >Corps of
> > > > > > > > >Engineers in the MN-ND-SD district in an attempt to
>locate
> > > > >some
> > > > > > > > >engineering plans for the Bois de Sioux project that
> > >possibly
> > > > > > >changed
> > > > > > > > >the course of the river.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > this is world class punctology
> > > > > > > > which btw is what i think bp is about at its best
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If available this map might show the
> > > > > > > > >riverbed just prior to the "avulsion".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > yes
> > > > > > > > it might be available
> > > > > > > > & it might show their avulsion
> > > > > > > > if indeed they made one
> > > > > > > > for they might also have simply been reinforcing the
> > >existing
> > > > >or
> > > > > > >dominant
> > > > > > > > bed here while backfilling any potential competition from
> > >all
> > > > >lesser
> > > > > > > > channels or relict beds
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it does at least seem from my own recollection of the
>site
> > >as
> > > > >well
> > > > > > >as from
> > > > > > > > the usgs depiction at topozone 25k scale that the old
>river
> > >bed
> > > > > > >usgs places
> > > > > > > > mnndsd in today no longer exists
> > > > > > > > compliments probably of usace
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since meanders become more
> > > > > > > > >acute until they finally break through and form a
>horseshow
> > > > >lake,
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > >position of the river mid-channel along the current
>ND-SD
> > > > >line just
> > > > > > > > >prior to the avulsion would be the tri-point according
>to
> > > > >legal
> > > > > > > > >principles we have discussed here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i agree with your premise & probably your conclusion too
> > > > > > > > but dont see how the one follows the other
> > > > > > > > yet perhaps no matter
> > > > > > > > but i am running out of time at this computer
> > > > > > > > so i will have to continue later
> > > > > > > > but please respond or add in if you like
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately I have not even
> > > > > > > > >received a confirmation that the USACE received my
>message
> > > > >and it
> > > > > > >has
> > > > > > > > >been a couple of days.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >BJB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > thanxx to your several recent theories & other new
>info
> > > > > > > > > > i have substantially revised my own mnndsd guess
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > in fact much of my 1858 to 2002 chronology guess is
>now
> > > > > > >smithereens
> > > > > > > > > > tho its basic idea of benign neglect & sublime
> > >ignorance is
> > > > > > > > >unchanged
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & i no longer agree with my former opinion that it
>isnt
> > > > >worth
> > > > > > > > >talking
> > > > > > > > > > about without proof
> > > > > > > > > > for that was a folly anyway
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it is always worth talking if it feels good
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > m
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner"
><maxivan82@h...>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > truth
> > > > > > > > > > > good luck
> > > > > > > > > > > m
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > > > > > > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > > > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal
> > > > >supplement to
> > > > > > > > >bus&ss
> > > > > > > > > > > >discovered
> > > > > > > > > > > >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:03:48 -0000
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >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
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > > > > > > > > > http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
> > > > > > >http://messenger.msn.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > > > >http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > >http://mobile.msn.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com