Re: Re: stretching the quest for a real stretchable latex tripoint to stretch

ok great
so with this explanation & blessing from you
i am happy to buy the map at the bottom of haggard
& to then renew the search for this at least notional
tripoint 
on the height of land along his closing line between
bayou pierre lake & the sabine at 32x94 latlong

bayou pierre lake centers roughly on
nlat 32d06m20s & wlong 93d33m30s
& i dont think there is any point in trying to be more
exact there
especially since i dont know the needed maths for this
exact interpolation

but i can estimate a first trial solution anyway 
hereabouts
if it isnt too much of a stretch of the imagination
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=32.07363&lon=-93.76027&size=l&u=6&datum=nad83&layer=DRG
with the 1803 de jure esus2latx convergent arriving on
the nw taxi way
to meet a nearly perpendicular oblique neutral ground
closing line
at or near the cursor cross 
voila 
a well stretched 1806lalatxtx1819

--- "Lowell G. McManus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Please see my insertions.
> 
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak-/[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: stretching the
> quest for a real 
> stretchable latex tripoint to stretch
> 
> 
> > yikes lowell
> > my question now as always is indeed just about the
> > tripoint
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification of your question.  You
> have my original 
> answer and my later revision in light of Haggard.
> 
> 
> > & i am often amazed & amused at how you keep
> losing
> > track of or overlooking or forgetting or
> neglecting or
> > belittling & thus ultimately denying that the
> > multipointing & trypointing are the actual point
> of bp
> >
> > while all the other stuff is just the background
> for
> > that
> > or less
> >
> > & your sudden abandonment now of your former
> authority
> > nardini in favor of your newfound authority
> haggard is
> > not without its difficulties for you too
> >
> > for haggard at least plainly states right up front
> > that the boundaries of the neutral ground have
> never
> > been officially described & that as a matter of
> fact
> > only the sabine river & arroyo hondo were
> mentioned in
> > the herrera wilkinson agreement
> 
> 
> I agree with Haggard here too.  None of this is de
> jure.  Like him, I 
> have been trying to discover out the practical de
> facto boundaries of 
> this de facto Neutral Ground.  In BP post 14285 two
> years ago, I wrote: 
> "Many sources agree with THE HANDBOOK OF TEXAS in
> saying, 'The 
> boundaries of the Neutral Ground were never
> officially described beyond 
> a general statement that the Arroyo Hondo on the
> east and the Sabine 
> River on the west were to serve as boundaries.'
> However, I have seen a 
> few other sources that give a complete delimitation.
> Perhaps this was 
> subsequently developed pursuant to the
> Wilkinson-Herrera agreement."  So 
> it does appear.  Wilkinson and Herrera (negotiating
> only through 
> subordinants anyway) mentioned only the streams
> where the single main 
> road crossed into the Neutral Ground from either
> direction.  It is in 
> notes exchanged among others that there emerged a
> fuller description of 
> the two-dimensional zone that came to be mutually
> understood as neutral, 
> in which settlement was officially prohibited, and
> which was patrolled 
> at least once by a joint US-Spanish military force. 
> When the local 
> Spanish commander and the American land agent both
> write letters to the 
> American territorial governor in substantial
> agreement as to extensive 
> specific boundaries, then the effect is that the de
> facto Neutral Ground 
> has acquired a set of practical limits beyond the
> few words in the 
> Wilkinson-Herrera agreement.
> 
> 
> > & he admits all the rest of what he says about
> these
> > boundaries
> > including the map he ultimately reconstructs & or
> > adopts
> > cannot be said to be accurate
> >
> > & if you are really in agreement with haggard then
> you
> > must realize this too
> 
> 
> All that Haggard or I was trying to do was map the
> general area mutually 
> understood between the local American and Spanish
> officials to be 
> neutral.
> 
> 
> > nor does his or anyones supposedly finding the
> lost
> > bayou pierre settlement in bayou pierre lake make
> any
> > difference to the actual delineation of the
> neutral
> > ground boundary
> > nor consequently to the identification of the
> latex
> > tripoint
> 
> 
> Well, Haggard did not make up the Bayou Pierre
> Settlement out of whole 
> cloth.  According to his sources (in the mouse
> roll-overs of his 
> footnote references in the full verison of the SHQ
> article) it was 
> Commandant General Nemesio Salcedo in a letter to
> Governor Claiborne who 
> said that the limit of the Neutral Ground ascended
> Bayou Pierre as far 
> as that Spanish settlement, and it was Land Agent
> Peter Samuel Davenport 
> in a report to the Congress who said that it went
> from such settlement 
> in a straight line to the geocord confluence on the
> Sabine.  If one 
> believes at all in a commonly accepted set of bounds
> for the practical 
> effect of the Neutral Ground, then the Bayou Pierre
> Settlement (well 
> north of the source of Arroyo Hondo) must be part of
> the picture.
> 
> 
> > so to that extent i agree we have made great
> progress
> > here
> >
> > but i still think all we can say with any
> assurance is
> > that our latex tripoint if any is still somewhere
> > north
> > or actually rather somewhere west
> > & only perhaps somewhere northwest
> > of the arroyo hondo source
> > on or near the sabine red watershed line
> >
> > in fact i might go so far as to suggest now
> > directly across the grain of all conventional
> wisdom
> > that there is no basis in fact for extending the
> line
> > north at all from arroyo hondo
> > but only west
> > & thus no better tripointing stretch or stitch to
> be
> > made with any authority than that of nlat
> 31d47m30s
> > directly to the sabine red watershed line
> >
> > but it is just a suggestion in any case
> > for my actual belief is still that this tripoint
> cant
> > really be said to have ever existed in fact
> 
> 
> Yes!  That is exactly why I resisted drawing it on
> my map in 2004 and 
> only ventured an estimation yesterday at your
> continued insistence upon 
> having a tripoint.  The de facto Neutral Ground was
> created by the local 
> authorities in Natchitoches and Nacogdoches
> precisely because no de jure 
> location for the international boundary was yet
> fixed by their superiors 
> in Washington and Madrid.  That section of the
> boundary north of the 
> Neutral Ground was just as unfixed, but it didn't
> matter as much because 
> there was nobody there yet.  The Adams-de Onís
> Treaty of 1819 resolved 
> all uncertainty with a de jure boundary from the
> Gulf 
=== message truncated ===



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


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:BoundaryPoint-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> 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/