Subject: Re: diagram anyone<br/>
Date: Jan 12, 2003 @ 00:22<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 &lt;orc@orcoast.com&gt; (&quot;acroorca2002 &lt;orc@...&gt;&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="8619.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8624.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic8602.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="8620.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8622.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-7217429">thanx very much<br/>
that is a big help<br/>
<br/>
so just to simplify all the foregoing<br/>
clearly the kt rocks & monumental cross cant be border markers<br/>
& it all boils back down to a question of whether the quadripoint <br/>
occurs somewhere within the marker 110 complex <br/>
as our eyes would like to believe<br/>
or at the very peak<br/>
as the original treaty evidently says<br/>
<br/>
& if this 1840s treaty does not in fact clarify the matter further than <br/>
to simply say the peak is the quadripoint<br/>
then perhaps the treaties that followed in the 1850s or <br/>
afterwards will indicate that some change did occur<br/>
perhaps necessitated by the practical problems encountered by <br/>
the commissioners when they first tried to establish a marker at <br/>
the peak<br/>
or for whatever other cause<br/>
<br/>
so it cant be ruled out that one of these later treaties rather than <br/>
the original may hold the missing clue<br/>
<br/>
but if no new paperwork can be found to show that an <br/>
adjustment was made & accepted subsequent to the original <br/>
agreement<br/>
then it would seem that the original agreement is still in force<br/>
& that the monumentation must therefore simply be of the <br/>
indirect variety<br/>
no matter how directly denotative it may seem  <br/>
rather than that the quadripoint has somehow inexplicably <br/>
moved down from the peak<br/>
<br/>
for neither any apparent markers nor even the testimony of a <br/>
local expert could trump the operative written agreement  <br/>
<br/>
so i would say the only important thing still missing from the <br/>
diagram is the position of the peak in relation to marker 110<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, Ernst Stavro Blofeld <br/>
&lt;blofeld_es@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; can anyone endeavor to sketch an aerial view of all<br/>
&gt; &gt; the <br/>
&gt; &gt; monuments & markers in relation to the pinnacle<br/>
&gt; &gt; with &or without boundaries superimposed<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Certainly.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; With all the usual disclaimers as to scale, weak<br/>
&gt; memory etc:<br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://images.enclaves.org/jungholz/110Sketch.jpg">http://images.enclaves.org/jungholz/110Sketch.jpg</a><br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Please tell me if you miss anything and I&#39;ll add it.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; M<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
 </span></blockquote>__________________________________________________<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; Do you Yahoo!?<br/>
&gt; Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.<br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a> </span></blockquote></div>