New in the SHADO Library

>
> Okay, seriously, this is becoming ridiculous. First, off, it was NOT
> hidden from public view. They were building A FILM STUDIO as cover -
> only what was going on underground was supposed to be secret and the
> construction above ground hid that. Second, who says they didn't use any
> pre-fab materials?? You? Who are you? Why don't you just admit you're
> not the be all, end all of UFO canon and give it a rest, chica?
>
> Y, a little fed up with this argument when there is nothing to argue
> over ....
>
>
>
> An Delendir wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> >
> >>back actually in 1980, i saw in japan, kobe, a 12 story skyscraper go
> >>up, in total security, with shrouds over it in 12 weeks...............it
> >>had to have 4 floors underground as a stablizer and earthquake damage
> >>prevention measure.
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > If you saw it go up, it wasn't in security, not like SHADO HQ, which had to have been entirely hidden from public eyes.
> >
> > But a skyscraper (and similar buildings) is a totally diffeent kettle of fish from the sort of building SHADO HQ is. Skyscrapers are practically entirely modular, there are very few different basic floor plans and all of them tend to be geared to use modular units. Most of what they consist of are steel skeletons, with prefabricated wall and floor units hung from those. These modular units will be built off-site, and used like wooden blocks by a playing toddler. Very fast, very easy construction.
> >
> > Massive buildings, with practically made-to-demand and measure floor plans and room sizes etc., built massively and with 10 or more feet thick walls, encapsulated in lead etc., that's definitely not something you build in weeks. Nor do the necessary excavation in any fast time.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > An
> >
> > http://edstraker.net (The Ed Straker Herald)
> > http://ufopedia.edstraker.com (UFOpedia)
>

>
> as far as this being a forum, you have every right to be cannon anal.......
> and to express it here.  im sorry about my alien joke, i was just trying to be funny.
> i do see your points, and since there is no explanation for all the dirt or cement talked about on the screen, we have to guess. what would be most reasonable?
> trucking out the dirt and then trucking in the cement i suppose. or elevating the entire lot with the spreading of dirt. it does seem that in one or two shows there are fields and ridges for the field boundries that run for acres......is that what happened to the dirt?
> also i would like to point out that layering of cement walls is a practice to avoid shock or earthquake damage, so prefab 1 foot thick walls could be rebar'd through and layered into the full thickness mentioned, as a protective measure.
> and think about all the military bases and bunkers that have been built all over the world, and also in cities, airports, portsmouth virginia for one. i have never read one suspicious letter about those, until the ufo craze in the early 1990's about covert, secret bases and such. having seen a lot of construction go up in california over the years i can only say that people stop caring and get used to it. i know that england would be different about that, but once told no, and to refrain from complaining, only the old and fringe population would pay attention enough to find a valid complaint, and then that complaint would be dismissed.
> so, i still think that a very large underground base , something like hoover dam being poured and dug out, could be done with the proper security, and without too much hassle on the part of the citizens protesting. stops and starts due to finances, or enviromental concerns that had to be resolved, things put in and then having to be torn out due to faulty granite or something could all be execellent cover stories.
> jim
>
> --- On Thu, 6/16/11, An Delendir <andelendir@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: An Delendir <andelendir@...>
> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO Bloopers
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 4:38 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Hi Yuchtar,
>  
> > Okay, seriously, this is becoming ridiculous.  First, off, it was NOT
> > hidden from public view. They were building A FILM STUDIO as cover -
> > only what was going on underground was supposed to be secret and the
> > construction above ground hid that.
>  
> They were even building an apartment and office block adjacent to the studios as a cover, not just the studios!
>  
> As Straker himself says and as anyone with some basic knowledge about construction sites, building and excavations can tell you,  you cannot keep removing several million cubic feet on a sheer endless fleet of trucks coming out of a very small excavation site without being noticed. Without any logical explanation for this enormous amount of soil you have the typical rabbit in the hat effect, with people wondering what the hell is taking place there.
>  
> And yes, the underground HQ was supposed to be hidden. Thus - no one should notice it is being excavated (see above). And - the excavation must take place with the topside unchanged to the public eye. The static calculations for this alone are a nightmare. The relevant installation of equipment as well. None of that can be done in a matter of months, especially not when entirely hidden from the public.
>  
> > Second, who says they didn't use any pre-fab materials?? You?
>  
> It is prefab modules or units, not materials.
>  
> I suggest you inform yourself here:
>  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefab#Current_uses
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefab#Disadvantages
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_building
>  
> And any architect worth his salt could also tell you why there are no prefab units for an underground building constructed to measure and spec and in secrecy.
>  
> Which mass-producing factory would you have build 10+ feet thick, leadlined concrete walls? How would you transport these, especially in secrecy? How get them down a covered construction site? They would definitely not have fitted through the studio gate and quite likely strained any lifting gear available for the site.
>  
> > Who are you? Why don't you just admit you're
> > not the be all, end all of UFO canon and give it a rest, chica?
>  
> At this point I take exception to your mail and consider both your tone, the content and the address as being quite offensive.  
>
> "Chica" is a demeaning term to refer to a (Latino) girl as per enough dictionaries. Trying to curb my participation in this discussion, rsp. telling me what I may or may not talk about, is offensive, outside your competence and rather blatantly the contrary of what a discussion list is supposed to be.
>  
> There is a general Netiquette for discussion lists of any sort, which says pretty much this:
>  
> "No ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is marked by an attack
> on an opponent's character/person rather than by an answer to the
> contentions made in the debate."
>  
> So far I tend to believe that a discussion about canon is on topic for the SHADO-list. So far *I* have not once attacked anyone on a personal level and been perfectly polite as well. I certainly nowhere attacked anyone's character or person. I used no derogatory terms to address anyone, and I certainly also told no one to shut up already, as you did while addressing me.
>  
> As to me and canon - I am anal about canon. I readily confess to that. People will have to live with it. I'm not going to change in that respect.
>  
> There are modelmakers on this list, not too few, and artists, both of whom replicate UFO machinery, from Interceptors to SHADO Jeeps. The attention to the most minute detail these artists give their creations, getting it "just so" right, so that they are as close as they can be to what the original models on the UFO set were, is nothing else but canon as well. Anyone who is intent on recreating or understanding something in such detail and to such an extent should by all means grasp why canon can be important, and how people can become anal enough about it, to discuss and argue at times over something someone else may think non-essential.
>  
> I do not think that any one participating in this discussion, myself included, twisted anyone else's arm to contribute, or even read. I have no problem accepting it intrigues only those also in some way interested in canon.
>  
> That said, it is for those just as anal and fascinated about verifiable, logical detail that Lightcudder and I have sat down for hours daily and started off that wiki. We're not getting paid for this, we don't even expect getting a thumbs up, and even though quite a few have started reading and consuming it, few opted to help so far. You did not do so either, I might note. 
>  
> If I am outspoken about canon facts, then this is because I am prepared to discuss their veracity. With those wanting to or willing to discuss. 
>  
> > Y, a little fed up with this argument when there is nothing to argue
> > over ....
>  
> If you are fed up with this argument, you can do the correct thing and hit the delete button or simply not read this thread and refrain from participating in it. Nothing stops you from being civilized in that respect.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> An
>  
> http://edstraker.net (The Herald)
> http://ufopedia.edstraker.com (UFOpedia)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> > And believe it or not, we do have the technology to do it right now.
>
> Well, having worked in the aerospace industry for decades, I would
> say that we do NOT have the technology to do what we see in UFO
> right now.
>
> The lunar modules and the Moonbase Interceptors have no room
> for fuel in them.  And they would need a LOT of fuel to do what
> they are doing.  Like 90% of their volume would be fuel.  Just
> look at the Apollo rockets -- these were mostly fuel, and they
> jettisoned various pieces behind so they wouldn't need even
> more fuel.
>
> Also, how long did it take for them to get from the Earth to
> Moonbase?  Anything less than 3 days would require even
> more fuel still than the Apollo rockets, which were taking
> a "least fuel" method of getting there/back.
>
> And how fast did the Interceptors go?  According to CLOSE UP,
> they were moving faster than the speed of light!!!  This is
> not possible now, nor for the foreseeable future... :-)
>
> Marc
>