1. paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    aha it turns out there actually was a yuma county vs maricopa county 1918 border suit so the accumulated puzzle pieces now strongly suggest that it was the
    Dec 13, 2004 @ 21:35 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  2. Re: [BoundaryPoint] paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    Great digging, Mike! I agree with almost all of your conclusions, particularly your new interpretation of the Initial Monument having been Atwood s--in
    Dec 14, 2004 @ 01:25 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  3. Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    thanx tho thats why i say as has been widely presumed for all the statutes you keep citing actually say is 113d20m as defined by the atwood survey etc which
    Dec 14, 2004 @ 17:53 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  4. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    In this business, any interpretation is tentative (to one degree or another), pending the receipt of better data. Your conclusions regarding a virtual-only
    Dec 14, 2004 @ 18:30 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  5. Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    but clearly on piyu either usgs mapping in all 3 scales as recently as 1990 is wrong or the latest revision of the arizona revised statutes is wrong but come
    Dec 14, 2004 @ 18:53 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  6. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think
    I agree. One thing that we don t know is the date of the latest revision of the statutes relating to the Pima-Yuma boundary. They might have been revised
    Dec 15, 2004 @ 05:44 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)