re was bggrtr remonumented & now washed away again too

the following excerpt from
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2005/may-jun/n15.htm
which is dated last spring 
reveals that the new bggrtr marker
if it has indeed survived the recent unprecedentedly
great flood
which i doubt
may very well
just like its predecessor 
be more ceremonial & sentimental than directly
demarcational
as well as not necessarily fully tripartite


Edirne Governor Nusret Miro?lu said on June 8 that the
“friendship monument” will be erected on Kavak island
on the Meriç river where the borders of Turkey, Greece
and Bulgaria meet, has reached its last stage. Miro?lu
said that on the monument, the inscription, “Towards A
United Europe” would be written in three languages
(Turkish, Bulgarian and Greek). Miro?lu said further
that they had a meeting with Bulgarian, Turkish and
Greek officials on June 6 in Bulgaria and discussed
the details of the initiative which was launched by
the Foreign Ministries of the three countries. “We
signed an agreement about it at the meeting and
Bulgaria will erect the monument,” Miro?lu added.


indeed there is now all the more reason to doubt that
this marker & its predecessor ever marked the true
tripoint
which is now suspected more strongly than ever of
remaining in the middle of the river where the ibs
claims it is



& the following excerpt from bp was formerly the state
of the try in msg 19396 dated this march

--- In [email protected], "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> & the new tripoint marker 
> if not the entire flood prone tripoint marker island
> if they really are tripartite & if they survived the
previous flood
> are now taking another & bigger hit
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4806370.stm
> 
> the attached picks up the state of the try from last
october 
> in message 18458
> 
> --- In [email protected], aletheia
kallos <aletheiak@> wrote:
> >
> > thanx 
> > nice 
> > please see inserts
> > 
> > > Our monument is definitively a tripoint monument
> > > since it has the three
> > > flags, but could still be symbolic
> > 
> > right
> > & i agree it is still unclear if the true tripoint
is
> > on the new 3flag marker
> > just as it was unclear if the true tripoint was on
the
> > old 3flag marker it replaces
> > 
> > also unclear btw if the new tall thin monument 
> > which was installed in july
> > even survived the great flood in august
> > 
> > > The three flags are painted on trees on each
side of
> > > countries territories
> > >
> >
(http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/BordersBGT.htm).
> > > Would BG allow
> > > painting of GR flag on BG tree?
> > 
> > well if they are all determined to make the island
> > into a friendship park 
> > then yes of course anything is possible
> > regardless of where the true boundaries may fall
> > 
> > but this skirts the greater question of
> > did bulgaria actually cede half of her half of the
> > island to greece
> > & does the east west vista on the island really
carry
> > bggr within it
> > 
> > as the ibs studies suggest
> > the 
> > protocol des conclusions de la commission de
> > delimitation de la frontiere greco turque
> > with detail maps
> > issued in athens on 3 nov 1926
> > pursuant to the 1923 treaty of lausanne
> > may yield the needed clue to this extraordinary
border
> > & tripoint displacement
> > 
> > i mean 
> > if they really did move 
> >  
> > > GR & TR are not the best play mates, and so I am
> > > sure TR would not approve
> > > GR flag if only BGTR marker
> > 
> > i agree it may be hard to imagine
> > yet it is not on the turkish half of the island 
> > nor on the turkish half of the marker
> > so not unthinkable
> > & they are at least making a show of trying to be
> > friendly here
> >  
> > > Our TR hosts did not want to be photographed on
GR
> > > side
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Cons:
> > > 
> > > If No1 is the tp, why does BG put 320?
> > 
> > the 320 series is from the 1921 bgtr demarcation
> > & we recall perhaps half a dozen of these
> > including various letter suffixes 
> > on both banks & both islands
> > but all in a north south line 
> > & all directly marking 1921 bgtr except for 320a
on
> > the south bank
> > 
> > & grtr marker number 1 
> > on the south side of the so called island a
> > was inserted into that line in 1926
> > to complement 320a in indirect demarcation of the
> > midstream tripoint
> > 
> > but some of your maps show this indirect grtr
number 1
> > 
> > & others show a different marker number 1
> > of an unknown series & in any case not the same
marker
> > 
> > apparently marking the tripoint directly on kavak
> > island itself
> > 
> > so lets not confuse these 2 different number ones
> > neither one of which we have necessarily even seen
btw
> > & lets also not conclude that either one holds the
> > true tripoint
> > 
> > (local
> > > ignorance?)
> > 
> > it could be
> > & we cant rule it out that whatever has occurred
may
> > only be extralegal
> > while it is widely believed to be legal
> > at least until we find some real legal basis for
the
> > change
> > 
> > granted 
> > 80 years of habitual bulgarian acquiescence alone
> > could suffice
> > & we may be thrown back upon that explanation in
the
> > end
> > but i am not yet ready to acquiesce in it myself
> > 
> > , see
> > > http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/tp_mon.jpg, the
> > > photo is taken from GR by
> > > the way (if true tp). The "320 BG" inscription
was
> > > gone in May 2005.
> > > 
> > > Monument does not look like an official marker
> > 
> > right
> > & even the new one is a little unusual & therefore
> > perhaps suspicious 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Like on satellite photo, there is clear vista
along
> > > what should be BGGR
> > > (http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/bggrtr.jpg)
> > > 
> > > When copying the maps showing "Iceland Kavak" on
> > > http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/, the TR
officials
> > > tried to tell us somehow
> > > they were no good. I got the impression they
meant
> > > not to scale, or
> > > non-official maps or something like that
> > > 
> > > We were shown the spot where GRTR enters the
river. 
> > > 
> > > The photographed marker appeared to be 320CT.
Then
> > > what happened to 320 Biz
> > 
> > it could have been redesignated replaced destroyed
etc
> > 
> > 
> > but i say
> > onward to athens
> > 
> > if only we knew where to look for this protocol
> > hahaha
> > 
> > 
> > end inserts
> > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Jesper
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   _____  
> > > 
> > > Fra: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] PÃ¥
> > > vegne af aletheiak
> > > Sendt: 4. oktober 2005 00:57
> > > Til: [email protected]
> > > Emne: Re: SV: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr
> > > remonumented
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > delicious 
> > > many thanxxx
> > > & they give me a bright new idea 
> > > for regardless of the various map dates
> > > they do all together reiterate & underscore the
> > > already well known fact 
> > > of the extreme shiftiness of all these islands
> > > 
> > > which could singlehandedly explain how the
tripoint
> > > got out of the river &
> > > onto dry land
> > > 
> > > that is
> > > by pure avulsion 
> > > 
> > > & with no paperwork needed whatsoever
> > > 
> > > except that 
> > > even in such a case 
> > > bgtr & grtr should still run in a continuous
line
> > > downstream
> > > following the middle of the former main channel
in
> > > both cases
> > > which was
> > > according to their 1919 & 1923 treaties
respectively
> > > about 197 feet south of marker 1 on the south
side
> > > of kavak group island a
> > > which is the smaller island south of kavak
proper
> > > as some of your maps still rightly show
> > > 
> > > indeed there is still precisely that turnpoint
of
> > > bgtr showing there on
> > > several of them
> > > from off of the 320 monument line & into the
> > > mainstream
> > > which is exactly where the treaties & the ibs
> > > writeups lead one to expect
> > > the tripoint to be
> > > 
> > > so i am not quite ready to cry eureka yet
> > > but we may be stumbling onto something essential
not
> > > previously understood
> > > here
> > > 
> > > if only we can somehow explain away this one
> > > remaining messy detail 
> > > namely 
> > > that the trifinium shown on all your maps is
still
> > > not only a bit too far
> > > north
> > > but also at right angles to the orientation the
> > > treaties say it should have
> > > per ibs numbers 41 aka grtr & 56 aka bggr
> > > 
> > > it just led me to notice however that there is a
> > > small comment in ibs number
> > > 49 
> > > aka bgtr
> > > hinting that the tripoint could have been moved
> > > bilaterally by the grtr
> > > demarcation 
> > > commission of 1926
> > > 
> > > so any records that can be found of that party 
> > > may be the next if not the only remaining hope
for
> > > further investigation &
> > > elucidation
> > > 
> > > heavy breathing & nearly celebration here
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], "Jesper
> > > Nielsen" <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/jesniel/
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Maps are not dated, which could have been
nice.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Last photo show a 320 which we passed on the
> > > causeway to Kavak.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Jesper
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >   _____  
> > > > 
> > > > Fra: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > PÃ¥
> > > > vegne af aletheiak
> > > > Sendt: 3. oktober 2005 16:14
> > > > Til: [email protected]
> > > > Emne: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr
remonumented
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > yes please would love to eat em
> > > > 
> > > > --- In [email protected],
jesniel@i...
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I have various TR treaty maps of the tp that
I
> > > can scan.
> > > > > >-- Original Message --
> > > > > >To: [email protected]
> > > > > >From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > > >Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:04:53 -0000
> > > > > >Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] bggrtr
> > > remonumented
> > > > > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ><html><body>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > <tt>
> > > > > well ok but cshuro is marked by a ziggurat
> > > topped by an obeliskoid<BR>
> > > > > whereas the new bggrtr monument<BR>
> > > > > thanx to the partial pic youve found<BR>
> > > > > is still looking almost perfectly pyramidal
<BR>
> > > > > so far <BR>
> > > > > exactly as was
> > > > > >reported<BR>
> > > > > <BR>
> > > 
> > === message truncated ===

but can still be found if anyone is interested



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/WkiolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/