ahh len
aficionado of vertical sovereignty & busted rumors
i knew we should have interviewed you on this topic again too
it is easy to confuse everything & promise much
& it seems to me you have been very successful at it
& i grant there may still be half a prayer of proving the vertical
break of sovereignty under the vennbahn
tho it remains unsubstantiated
as you say
but thats about it
otherwise
you bring us the irretrievable past when the question was
expressly about the verifiable present
& was already practically impossible to fulfill
without this added uncertainty & dilution
& you bring the further imponderabilities of de facto & military
realities
as if the de jure questions we have actually been entertaining
werent elusive enough
& you dont want to recognize customs & immigrations
easements for what they patently or most probably are
& conclude the sovereignty must somehow have changed there
vertically
& tho we have recently seen pix & maps of both the chunnel &
channel having a median frgb territorial boundary
you have another fantastic theory
with a new raft of misconstrued questions to develop it
etc
etc
anyway
it got me to thinking
if the vennbann doesnt pan out
& the meat factory does
then we may actually have a situation in which the only things
passing thru the worlds most magical chute are not planes or
trains or cars or pedestrians
but animals
on the hoof or belt
yet it is all still hogwash & pipe dreams
so far as i am concerned
& i still rather doubt a clear clean example will be found
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> If we revisit the Vennbahn, the question remains open as to the
nature
> of the bridges carrying the Belgian railway and the depth to
which the
> Belgian border goes below the railway track bed to the German
roads
> that pass underneath. The claim is made that there are five
exclaves
> of Germany on the western side of the Belgian tracks, yet,
maps show
> conflicting borders and nobody has been able to say if German
> sovereignty over the roads passing under the bridges that carry
the
> tracks is interrupted for the 5 meter width of the railway track
bed
> passing above and perpendicular to the road. Treaties say
that
> sovereignty over the rail line rests with Belgium, but doesn't
seem to
> address how deeply into the earth that sovereignty extends.
>
> In the past, we have seen at least two examples of vertical
borders -
> one in Steinstuecken after the East Germans ceded a
passage for a road
> to West Berlin, and another, at Herbesthal, now in Belgium.
Prior to
> WWII, when Germany had Eupen and Malmedy, the border
between Belgium
> and Germany was at Herbesthal, where the tracks passed
under a neutral
> bridge, but there was no neutral area under the bridge through
which
> the railway tracks passed. I have a photo of this, and I don't
fully
> understand it, because even "neutral" areas have "titular
sovereigns"
> who ultimately, upon extinction of the neutrality, would "regain"
> sovereignty over the area, such as is the case with the neutral
zone
> separating Spain from Gibraltar. It is "really" Spain's, and
Spain
> has, citing it's sovereign rights, many times encroached upon it
and
> narrowed it to the point where, today (last I saw), it's about a
meter
> or two wide.
>
> Also, in former East Germany, we must remember that the
conquering
> western allies established their sovereignty over the air
corridors
> between West Germany and W. Berlin - and they were tubes -
there were
> maximum and minimum elevations where the western
airspace ended.
> There was an instance of a crash of a PanAm flight in East
Germany
> just outside of W. Berlin, but inside the roughly circular portion
of
> the corridor that permitted allied planes maneuvering room
over the
> western part of the city. The allies were not permitted to travel
> beyond the area that was the Soviet sector of E. Berlin into E.
> Germany proper to aid at the crash site. The East Germans
reminded
> the allies that the plane, once it descended below the lower
altitude
> limit of the air corridor, it had entered E. German airspace and
had
> subsequently landed on E. Germany soil outside of Berlin.
They
> refused to let western authorities get to the site.
>
> Lastly, let's consider a "bridge in reverse". Who holds the
> sovereignty over the "Chunnel" between France and the UK?
Are there
> uninterupted international waters from the SW - NE ends of the
English
> channel, or is internationality at the surface of the water
> interrupted because the sovereignty for the length of the tunnel
tube
> extends in the width of the tunnel upwards forever? How come
maps of
> France and the UK never show their international borders
extending
> into the channel for the length of the tunnel over which each is
> sovereign? Is the area of the Chunnel a condominium?
>
> LN
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> > wonderful
> > tho how can i be wrong just to doubt this
> > based on the evidence presented til now
> > which i believe has consisted entirely of busted rumors
> >
> > & of course i would love to see any real examples
> > in pix &or treaties
> > or however else you might bring them to bear
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B."
> > <kbajoraz@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but other than that single hope
> > > > i rather doubt vertical borders or any kind of vertical
> > > differentiation
> > > > of sovereignty can be pointed to as a present reality
> > anywhere in
> > > > the world today
> > >
> > > Here you are wrong Mike. Tho I give 0 credibility to that
> > apartment
> > > building story and Len's case involves administration, not
> > > sovereignty, all Lithuanian border teaties establish that the
> > border
> > > in water constructions (such as bridges, dams, lake drains
> > and stuff)
> > > do not follow the border there vertically present, but instead
go
> > > trough the physical axis (middle) of such constructions. So
for
> > > example (and there must be a whole bunch of these
cases)
> > there's a
> > > river, somwhere around the middle is the border line. We
can
> > extend
> > > the border line to ground depths and air and it makes the
> > > border "wall". However there is a bridge suspended in the
air
> > and the
> > > middle of the bridge doesn't match exactly the borderline
> > below, thus
> > > causing an iterruption of the border wall. A piece of
Lithuanian
> > > bridge slammed two meters trough the Russian wall and
stuff
> > like
> > > that. Sadly, it is impossible to be in this disturbed border
area
> > as
> > > it is only INSIDE the bridge. Even if you would try to make a
> > hole in
> > > the bridge, the hole would then not be a part of the bridge
but
> > > become air space and follow the normal border. Very
weird,
> > yes, but
> > > this is not referred to in any terms of exceptional conditions
or
> > > anything, the border treaties simply say that BORDER in
water
> > > constructions is the axes of such.