4 ms·
Agreed! I clicked around the site, and I experienced vast content-frustration. I noticed that many of his projects appear to be "exhibits" -- they have physica
by mr_luc 17y ago
Agreed!
I clicked around the site, and I experienced vast content-frustration. I noticed that many of his projects appear to be "exhibits" -- they have physical frames and are or were (apparently) displayed somewhere for the public.
Which is pointless. :P I mean, effectively pointless. I'm never going to see his exhibit, and neither is any significant percentage of the population of interested people, so why not put it all online?
Taking pictures of the unmarked CIA 737's operating from deep in the off-limits desert ... that's cool stuff. Why must there be so little info?
I expected one of the links to lead to a how-to. :P
- TriinT 17y agoI conjecture that a detailed How-To would upset the Department of Defense quite a bit. After all, these remote USAF airbases in the deserts of the Southwest are remote for a reason...
- andreyf 17y agoDoesn't seem like anything the Russians or Chinese wouldn't see in great detail using satellites, or with their extensive spy networks.
- TriinT 17y agoSuppose the U.S. is testing a new secret fighter jet. If you don't know when the new jet will leave the hangar for a test flight, your satellites will be useless. Long-distance photography would perhaps provide some intel. Of course, if the test flights were carried out at night, as it happened while the F-117 was being tested, then photography would not help much, Do note that when most USAF bases in the Southwest were built, there were no satellites at all, and hence, no spy satellites.
- Zak 17y agoDo you care? If so, why?
- TriinT 17y agoThese days you can be arrested if you have a home chemistry lab. Imagine what the government would do to you if you started teaching people how to peek on supposedly secretive military bases.