Subject: Re: new inpk map & cninpk in the news etc<br/>
Date: May 06, 2003 @ 23:49<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="9954.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic9867.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="9954.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9956.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1531494293">apologies & reparations for the unintended double post<br/>
<br/>
the new cia map referred to in the article appears to have been<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir">http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir</a><br/>
_region_2003.jpg<br/>
but there are unexplained discrepancies<br/>
<br/>
& for a more complete news article<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=23243">http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=23243</a><br/>
yet this improved version likewise doesnt quite jibe with the <br/>
above map<br/>
<br/>
in any case the upshot of the purported but still unconfirmed <br/>
change in the cia perception would be that cninpk is no more <br/>
likely to fall at karakoram pass than at indira col<br/>
which you may recall was the alternative cninpk position given on <br/>
the detail map in the sandia link below<br/>
<br/>
& for an expedition to indira col <br/>
via the intervening siachen glacier<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.indmount.org/imfindracol.html">http://www.indmount.org/imfindracol.html</a><br/>
<br/>
so at least we now have visits to both of the most major <br/>
probabilities while we wait for some confirmations<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;acroorca2002&quot; <br/>
&lt;orc@o...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.keralanext.com/news/index.asp?id=10337">http://www.keralanext.com/news/index.asp?id=10337</a><br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;acroorca2002&quot; <br/>
&gt; &lt;orc@o...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
 </span></blockquote><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/Links/about/papers/SAND980505-20/">http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/Links/about/papers/SAND980505-20/</a><br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; SAND98-0505-20.htm<br/>
&gt; &gt; includes maps showing <br/>
&gt; &gt; among other inpk details <br/>
&gt; &gt; the relationship between 2 of the possible versions of cninpk<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; the second of these maps even indicates a small area along <br/>
&gt; &gt; inpk that neither country evidently claims<br/>
&gt; &gt; & that presumably therefore no country in the world claims<br/>
&gt; &gt; the first such reported or purported spot of everyones land <br/>
&gt; &gt; anywhere on dry ground outside the antarctic treaty zone<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; but i have seen so many different versions of the disputed <br/>
 </span></blockquote>inpk <br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; & <br/>
&gt; &gt; cnin boundaries <br/>
&gt; &gt; both de jure & de facto<br/>
&gt; &gt; that i would have little confidence in any supposed tripoint <br/>
&gt; &gt; position claims in this area at this time </span></blockquote></div>