From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 1997 - 11:31:10 MDT
EvMick@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-07-12 19:12:34 EDT, you write:
>
> << Given that machines always do break down no
> > matter who builds them, it is not unreasonable that a vehicle would
> > break down after an interstellar flight and entering our atmosphere.
>
> Why? In general the more advanced our commercial vehicles get the more
> reliable they are, if properly maintained. >>
>
> (this is my cue.).
>
> To support your case you might consider my situation....I drive a 91
> Freightliner FLD 120....currently it has 1,058,402 on the odometer...
So you've gone a million miles at or around 55 mph. Ever broken a
fanbelt? A radiator hose? a valve or valve lifter? I know the U-joints
on the drive shafts of those babies tend to go...
Ever get stuck in the middle of nowhere with a breakdown?
Now, you were operating in a flight regieme of constant surface contact
in a range of 0-75 mph on well paved roadways, that has billions of
manhours of research and engineering behind it, as well as 100 years of
operation of over a billion vehicles under similar conditions. That is
probably the largest engineering base to support the level of technology
in all of our civilization, and they still can't make a starter solenoid
that lasts the life of the vehicle or a cooling system that can run
through the desert without specialized mods.
Commerical airliners, similarly, have a huge database of flight time,
test, and basic research behind them, so much so that they are the
safest form of transportation around. Yet they still crash, don't they?
Most recently, we have one that blew up over Long Island for no reason
that anyone can agree on, one that lawn darted into the Everglades
because oxygen containers were loaded in the cargo hold, several more
whose wings shattered in blizzards over the midwest, and numerous
others whose radar and navigation systems weren't good enough to see
mountains in front of them. Locally here in NH, nobody has yet found
that Learjet that dissapeared Christmas Eve after aborting a landing at
our fog draped airport.
When I made my original post, regarding how the claims of abduction of 1
in 40 persons do not jive with my analysis that shows that given that
abduction rate, we should be seeing a crash rate between 1-12 UFOs per
year. In this instance, I was using commercial airline figures for crash
rates, which are the best around, because I was envisioning these
supposed aliens as operating their abduction operation like an airline.
One fact I left out of my post is that this analysis projected an alien
population on earth of between 40,000 - 100,000 beings needed to provide
support, logisitics, and crewing for this fleet that should range
somewhere between 1000-5000 vehicles. That none of these illegal aliens
have been discovered by our press, or by mom and pop with their shotguns
is indicative of the ludicrousness of the whole abduction thing.
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@tpk.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Mikey's Animatronic Factory
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL
@k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_
]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256;
&S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:35 MST