Category: Bad Ideas

“The First Thing is to Find Some Men” How to Get a Boy-Date, 1941

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 914

[Continuing the posts “What Makes Human Robot Girls, 1941” and The Missing Pieces of Women, Pope Joan and the Proper Girl]

Do Boys Like You? is
the name-of-the-game for girls, evidently (“set out to make yourself worthy of a boy’s
affection. Just one boy—any boy…”),
brought to you as a part of a long, continuing series by Elizabeth Woodward in
the Ladies’ Home Journal in the early
1940’s.

This installment is about getting a boy for a date, and how to make
oneself getable and datable and boy-friendly, all while maintaining the
thinnest veneer of self-acknowledgment (“be adaptable as a chameleon”) as possible while staying true to “yourself”. It is a cocktail of overall old-lady sense
and deep ruffled bows writ by the hand of gender entrapment and not-so-subtle
subjugation. Let’s get to it with some of the more archaeologically-interesting
statements of this social-norms-establishing pamphlet:

Paragraph: (Intro):

“Do boys like you, or don’t they? Its as easy as that! Either you have dates and go places with lots
of boys, or they don’t pay any attention to you at all.”

Paragraph: “A Female World”

“…the first thing is to find some men.” (Which is odd
because “men” is used only one other time beyond this reference—its all boys
and nothing but boys.)

“Short of throwing yourself on their (boys’) mercy, see if
you can’t wrangle an introduction out of the girls who do know boys…”

“Your parents could invite their friends over for dinner and
ask them to bring along their son. And you do a good job on him!” (I’m not sure
what that “job” is.)

“They (boys) can’t find you if you’re packed away in a mob
of females.”

Paragraph: “A Rank Outsider” (on being the new girl in a
community):

“The girls have things under control and they don’t want any
interference from you.”

“You might know more than they do, and you just might talk
down your pug nose at them.”

“…you’d better get accustomed to traveling alone…”

“Give them every chance to find out that you aren’t high
hat, that you like the same things they do, that you aren’t out to sniggle
their men away…”

“When they (the girls) accept you, the boys will too…”

Paragraph: “an Old Story”

“(Boys) are so used to looking at you that they think of you
as furniture.You’ve got to be new!”

“If you’re fat and pudgy, make yourself lean, sleek and
smart.”

Paragraph “Take it Easy”

“…its going to take practice to make boys like you. Take it
easy. Set out to make yourself worthy of a boy’s affection. Just one boy—any boy…”

Paragraph “A Few Gentle Hints” (Seems that we’ve gone way beyond this by now.)

“Don’t run around with girls who are dud.”

“Don’t go in pairs with a girl who is overwhelmingly popular…Better
pick a girl who will give you an even break.”

“Don’t languish for some local ‘hero’ who is sought after by
all the girls in town. He may be
good-but he’s far out of reach…”

“Don’t pick on a lad who has never had a date with a girl.”

“Don’t be careless or sloppy when you’re talking with boys…”

“Don’t expect (or even hope) that every boy you meet will
ask you for a date.”

And (not quite) lastly, but should’ve been:

“Don’t go around thinking about boys constantly.”

But lastly thus:

“Act as though you are having fun. Be alive, gay and enthusiastic. Be interested in what’s going on. Be sweet, tactful, and adaptable as a chameleon. Have definite likes and dislikes, but don’t be so rigid
that you are stubborn, opinionated and difficult to get long with. Be carefree,
casual, easy, willing to play and fun to play with. And don’t be shy about
liking the boys.

THEN THE BOYS WILL LIKE YOU! [Emphasis in the original.]

My poor mother would’ve been reading this…

(Thanks to Jeff Donlan for pointing out that the chap on the
cover carrying the girl away has joined the fabric of her skirt to (1) hold
onto and steady her and (2) make sure her skirt doesn’t fly up and out and is not actually touching her thigh…)

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Absurdist, Unintentional — Bad Ideas — Blank and Empty Things; A History of — Women, History of
Missing Pieces of Women: Pope Joan & the Proper Popular Girl of “The Ladies’ Home Journal”

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 910

Listening
to these dreadful stories this morning on NPR about the Vatican’s relations
with the Roman Jewish community and the abortive WWII papacy of Pope Pius XII—the
papacy of blank and missing compassion—I thought about the missing Papacy of
Pope Joan. Whether or not she existed is
a question of debate; whether she was a pope or not is perhaps even less
debatable. What seems not impossible
though is the ability of a large institution like the Catholic Church to make
the entire issue of unwanted history or legacy to go away.

The
historicity of this papacy is long and shows the murkiness of the earliest
writers on Joan. She was supposed to have served as pope between Leo IV and
Benedict III around the year 850. The
fuller versions of her history turn up in the 14^th century, although
the earliest mentions of a female bishop of Rome go back to the 9^th
century—Joan remains unnamed though until the 13^th century when
Martin of Opava’s Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum¹(referring to
Joan as “John Anglicus” or “John of Mainz”) does so for the first time.

Joan
escapes the Middle Ages with a little flair, but doesn’t do so well in the
Renaissance. As a Missing Piece in the
history of the Papacy she turns up not-so-well represented: for example, she is seen here looking good
but turning up bad overall as the Whore of Babylon². She was treated as a disgrace, and impostor,
someone who demeaned the Catholic institution by her sex and deception, though
god knows that the history of the papacy is filled with horror stories³ that
far exceed the reach of mere deception.

So
I was thinking about the piecing-together of the Pope Joan jigsaw and
remembered an actual “womanly” jigsaw that could actually be pieced
together. This bit came together as a
result of a post I did here just two days ago (What Goes Into Making Human Robot Girls, 1941), and was one of a series of
intolerably heavy eight-page pamphlets cementing the structure of female social
intercourse at the hands of the magazine The
Ladies’ Home Journal.

One of these
publications—hardly a pamphlet per se, just a folded 11×8 inch sheet of heavy
stock—came without a title, presenting itself as a puzzle. The puzzle pieces
are parts of two women, “Miss Popular” and “Miss Unpopular”: the reader was to
take the publication, cut out the pieces, and reassemble them into hidden role
models, with phrases describing each on the back of each puzzle piece, all done
without the slightest possible understanding of metaphor or irony.

Miss
Popular phrases/descriptors: live wire, plenty of push, wide awake, snappy
looker, dependable, genuine, secret keeper, on-her-toes, spick and span, light
hearted, all-around-student, straight-shooter, gossip scorner, sympathetic,
cheerer-upper, sparkler.

Miss
Unpopular’s phrases/descriptors: glory grabber, sour puss, cheater, sob-sister,
snooty-snob, wet-blanket, borrower, prissy prig, sharp tongue, gory gossiper,
clothes dummy, iceberg, sly and slippery, jellyfish, sticky-sweet, soft soaper
(?) and of course fast and loose.

And
so girls—or young women—picking up this publication in 1941 were expected to
cut this thing up and piece together the proper (paper) role model using the
reinforcing traits of meager acceptance printed on the back of the puzzle
piece. And poor Pope Joan, whether she was real or not, whether she was
imagined or sunk purposefully away into the Pandora’s sisters’ boxes of forced
forgetfulness—it really doesn’t matter—is just another woman or part of woman’s
puzzle whose blank or missing piece has been extruded, forced into a form more
friendly to a world less friendly to women.

Notes

1.According
to the Chronicon: “John Anglicus,
born at Mainz,
was Pope for two years, seven months and four days, and died in Rome, after which there
was a vacancy in
the Papacy of one month…” [See continued reading section below for more]

2.
Babylon was the
representation of the seat of evil on the Earth. From the “Book of Revelation” (17:3–4):
“And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy
with seven heads and ten horns. The woman was garbed in purple and scarlet, and
gilded with gold, gems, and pearls, and bearing a golden goblet in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.”

3.
Borgia and the Medicis not being the least of the story: see E.R. Chamberlin’s The Bad Popes, (1969)

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Absurdist, Unintentional — Bad Ideas — Blank and Empty Things; A History of
What Goes into Making Human Robot Girls, 1941

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 907

[See the follow-up post “First Thing to Do is to Find Some Men”; How to Get a Boy-date, 1941]

An
old friend of mine, Dr. Sam Koslov, was brilliant, accomplished and polymathic, with
great senses of wonder, inquisitiveness and humor. He spent many years in research and as a
long-time editor at Johns Hopkins APL. He was a delightful and serious man, though
one of the projects he worked on sounded much more like squeaky scifi than pure
sci. That was Project Pandora, and science fiction it definitely wasn’t—it was
an attempt at a form of control over human behavior via low level microwave radiation¹.

This
came to mind as I was leading through some very low level, high impact behavior
control exhibited in a series of social engineering pamphlets published by the Ladies’ Home Journal in the early 1940’s. It is heartbreaking, really, to think of people
like my mother reading these things and being inundated by cultural architecture
that left little to the imagination. It
seems so terrifically outrageous in 2010; and of course it makes me wonder
about what things that seem so de rigueur
today will be the Ladies’ Home
Embarrassments of 2050 .

Granted, nobody’s corneas were being shaken loose via this method, but the effect of the sentiments of control in these pamphlets still seem eye-poppingly
strangulating. I’ve included only a few
examples here, but there are at least a hundred others to choose from.

Perhaps
it was the Date-Rate pamphlet that caused most of my teeth to fall out—it is
sheer and painful, offering virtually nothing to the young women reading it and
practicing its morality play but gender obedience and servility.

“Did you give
him all your attention?” “Did he run things?” “Did you give him a chance to
impress you?” “Could you make him laugh?”
It isn’t until the final rating question (#25) that we get to something that
opened the possibility of a two-way interest in the relationship, but only
barely: “Did you find you liked the same things?” Its sad, really.

When I read some of this to my 17-year-old
daughter, she just looked at me with an open mouth and eyebrow furrows: it was simply beyond listening to, for her,
and certainly not anywhere near worthy of a response.

Of course this is just the tip of the tip of the tippity tip of the iceberg on the control of social thought and the keeping of the male-dominated social order, and its only one part of a very wide spectrum of overall codifications, much of which seem pretty much left to history within two generations.

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Bad Ideas — Blank and Empty Things; A History of — Women, History of
Big Planes: Aircraft with Dining Rooms in Their Wings

JF Ptak Science Books Post 906

Is it just me, or do the rest of you see Cary Grant at a teeny-tiny table when looking at this aircraft? There’s just something so horribly wonderful about the excesses washing over the passengers of high privilege in this airplane.[Source: The Illustrated London News 21 Dec 1929.]

And the airplane has a name—Christmas, named for the man who provided its inspiration, Dr. William Whitney Christmas¹–and was a paper plan to produce the world’s largest airplane.

It would’ve been so by leaps and bounds. The Christmas was to have a 262’ wingspan and a gross weight of 142,000 pounds at the time when one of the largest planes aloft—the Patrician Keystone K-78—had a wingspan of 86’ and carried 18 passenger, 2 pilots and an engineer. It also held the world’s record for hauling the heaviest payload, which for some reason was “33 girls”. It was bigger still than the largest thing in the air, Lufthansa’s Dornier DO.X –this was an aircraft capable of moving 60-100 passengers (serviced by a crew of 10-14), a flying boat with 12 (Curtiss Conqueror 610hp) engines on wing sections 157’ long. (Was this a mile-a-minute fuel consumer?) The Dornier plane didn’t last long in service due to operating costs (1929 was a bad year to undertake an expense like this, especially in the hyperinflated Germany) and was in an aviation museum by 1934². (This plane—one of three constructed—was destroyed in a RAF bombing raid in 1943.)

Here’s something extraordinary about the Christmas: it had a dining room (actually, a “dining saloon”) that took up 15% of the plane’s floor plan. There was also the spacious smoking room, the crew and officer quarters, the machinist’s shop, engine room balconies (?), and of course the staterooms that seem to run along most of the front of the plane. The side elevation shows not very much space at all allotted to what must’ve been some massive engines, seeing as how there’s only two four-blade props. (The small lateral cross section shows two people against the plane for scale—these folks must’ve been giants; I figure they should be a little more than 75% of the manikins. I make each prop blade to be about 10 foot (?))

As it turns out this aircraft looks a lot like Edmund Rumpler’s³ (1872-1940) giant. Outfitted with a long row of staterooms along the front edge of the large wing and a huge dining room, it doesn’t seem to be equipped with an area for the engines. Maybe this was an endemic flaw among older fast-thinkers…

Notes:

1. Dr. Christmas (1865-1960) was the third American to fly and was the first to design a plane with aerilons.

2. Compare this to the Antev An-225, a modern very-,limited-production monster that could haul 1.3 million pounds of cargo, and the 747 (hauling up to 900,000 pounds) and the mammoth Airbus A380—all relatively the same size but with fabulous design and power.

3.Rumpler made very significant aeronautical contributions to the German effort in WWI, as well as designed the first aerodynamic auto—his military planes though during the war were great triumph, partially because they were also Germany’s first mass-production-possible aircraft. This didn’t help him much when Hitler came to power—being Jewish, Rumpler was arrested, and then released by Goering who at least could find a small part of himself to save this one Jew who served Germany so well.

4. Source for the Rumpler image is the wonderful ModernMechanix site here.

Interesting comparison chart for big planes: [Source]

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Aviation & flight — Bad Ideas — Cross-Sections — Future, History of the
The Oldest Image of a Flying Pig? An Adynaton Antiquarian Illustration, 1687.

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 905

How
old is the saying, or rejoinder, “…when
pigs fly”? I dunno, and frankly it
doesn’t really matter. Except for right now, when I found this rather
extraordinary image of a pig-in-the-sky from 1687. It isn’t a flying pig, but I’m not sure what
it is: the origin of the image is from
J.de Dalence, Traite de l’Aiman (publihsed in Amsterdam in 1687), a book about the history
of magnetism. But nothing else matters,
just the flying, atmos-floating pig, right there in the sky, perfect against a
puffy cloud.

I
suspect—without any intention of doing any research on my suspicion—that this
may very well be the earliest depigtion of a flying pig. And it just so happens to have appeared in
the same year of Newton’s great Principigia.

And
just for the record, I wonder how often anyone sees an image 300+ or more years
old of any of the other great adynations? For example, “It is
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” from the Book of Matthew, 19:24, just doesn’t seem to lend itself to empirical description, as it would
pretty much lessen and defeat the purpose of the literary description.

The flying pig, though, may be a horse of a different
color, so to speak.

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Absurdist, Unintentional — Bad Ideas — Blank and Empty Things; A History of
The Architect’s Lament (Writ in Stone): Stockholm, 1914

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 870

Years ago when I lived in DC, a neighbor in Georgetown who was suitably
upset about being told how he could decorate the front of his townhouse spray-painted
the rules and regs of private house decoration right on the front of his
home. In colors, urban-graffiti style, about
10 feet high. As it turns out, his (influential)
neighbors were wrong about how restricted the colors were that he had chosen to
paint his house, and that he was perfectly within his rights to answer his
complaint by painting that n the front of his house. He made his point. For several years.

An extreme case of venting and protest—in the pre-mass
communication era—was found in Stockholm. The façade of the house designed by the
architect Klemming is decorated with his 40-foot high incised complaint against
the building bureaucracy of the city. As
it turns out Klemming was not allowed to proceed as he wished, running into
regulations preventing him from carrying out the design that he wanted. Defeated, he built what was allowed, and then
found a way to revenge—ironically, there was no regulation to keep him from his
permanent, stone-cold anti-reg voice.

I suspect that few architects, or builders, would disagree
with Kemmling’s sentiments.

(The text is clickable)

The rant reads, in part:

“A year was quite enough

For the building of this house,

But a long time was needed

To get permission for it.

Three years were passed

Before granted it was.

The fight was won at last,

But the wonds caused were severe.

To give full account of

how the fight
proceeded

this space would be too small…”

And ends:

“Oh Land , oh Town, consider well,

When bills of law are passed, lest private right be violated

And working spirit killed.”

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Architecture and Building — Bad Ideas
Time’s Bad Hair Day: 1540

JF Ptak Science Books Post 863

This image proves that even Time itself can have a bad hair day, from time to time. The woodcut image appears as the printer’s mark (of Simonem Colineum, or Simon de Colines) in the second volume of Johann Arboreus’ Theosophia, complectens difficillorum…, which was printed in Paris in 1540.

Time isn’t very pretty here, and is made to seem a little Satanic, what with cloven hooves and the legs of some animal, strong torso and swift wings—the hair hiding the eye(s) completes a picture of damnable doom, and of whatever end we’re coming to. Except for the righteous, though not quite: the word balloon describing Time’s spoken admonition is “Hanc Aciem Sola Retundit Virtus”, which means “only good deeds dulls the blade”. That doesn’t necessarily mean “stops” the blade, which is bothersome. I think that if someone were coming for me I’d like the blade as sharp as could be…

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Art History — Bad Ideas — History of Goodbye
A War-ready Submersible Aircraft, 1920: the Tessaurian

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 892

DARPA
has had a long-standing Christmas wish—a high-speed, durable, fast, agile tacticly-beautiful
submersible aircraft. Such a thing has
evidently been on the wish list of many agencies in many countries for many
years.

I
found the Royal Navy’s version of the DARPA wish in the 24 January 1920 issue
of The Illustrated London News—the Tessaurian, a dreamable plane capable of
long flight and long trips under the sea, as well as being able to float on the
water and land on dry earth.

Even the modern Tessaurian has been evasive—certainly
this 1920 version is nothing short of nothing.
The craft just looks too bumpy to do well in any sort of fluid environment,
air or liquid, the thickness of its skin (necessary for the heavy undersea
pressures) looking just too heavy to lift off the ground. Of course the powertrain is suspect, and the
retracted wings don’t look like they would do anything to glide the beast
further underwater, assuming it got there (on purpose) to begin with. Even though I doubt that it could fly, it may
be able to float a bit—I do think that it could sink like a champ.

And
so I reproduce these heady, unacknowledged and unclaimed drawings (“designed by
a leading aircraft company”), as I can’t find anything offhand online that
comes remotely close to its age and concept.

An
undergraduate (!) team (headed by Daniel B. Coltey et alia )at Auburn came up with
the following research paper earlier this year: “Conceptual Design of a
Submersible Tactical Insertion Aircraft” “This…senior design program…the
creation of a conceptual design for a submersible airplane is being undertaken
as a response in part to a challenge by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA).” The authors then state the checklist of DARPA’s needs: “The design is expected to be a clandestine,
coastal insertion vehicle with specific abilities of an airplane, surface ship,
and submarine vessel, which would greatly increase the tactical ability of the United States. The
aircraft is expected to accommodate eight passengers, including any necessary
equipment and operators, and an additional 2,000 pounds of cargo, and also to
have an unrefueled range of 1,000 nautical miles in cruise flight, 200 nautical
miles surface transit or very low altitude flight, and 24 nautical miles of submerged
travel. The aircraft requirements also include the ability to complete one
tactical transit (1,000 nautical miles airborne, 100 nautical miles surface,
and 12 nautical miles subsurface movement) in a time limit of eight hours. This
concept also addresses challenges in the areas of structural design, effective
propulsion in dual fluid flow regimes, and control surface duality…” I’d want one, too.

SOURCE

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Aviation & flight — Bad Ideas — Technology, History of
Shakespeare’s Renaissance Wisdom and the Turtle Dove
JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 887

Thinking about the second day of Christmas brought me to the turtle dove, and then almost immediately to William Shakespeare, and on to H.W.
Seager’s delightful Natural History in Shakespeare’s
Time being Extracts illustrative of the Subject as he knew it (London,
1896)1. Seager got to the point right
away, quoting the turtle dove’s appearances in Winter’s Tale and Merry Wives
before moving on to quote fabulous passages from Bartholomew de Glanvile and
Albertus Magnus.
```
WINTER'S TALE, iv. 4
```
FLORIZEL:

“I think
you have

As
little skill to fear as I have purpose

To put
you to’t. But, come; our dance, I pray:

Your
hand, my Perdita; so turtles pair

That
never mean to part.”
```
MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR, iii. 3, 44. 
```
Henry VI, Part IDuke of Burgundy:

“Myself, as far as I could well discern
For smoke and dusky vapours of the night,
Am sure I scared the Dauphin and his trull,
When arm in arm they both came swiftly running,
Like to a pair of loving turtle-doves
That could not live asunder day or night.
After that things are set in order here,
We’ll follow them with all the power we have.”

Then on to the 13th century Bartholomew de Glenvile, ostensibly a compendious theologian but who was also a general encyclopaedist who provided one of the widest views on the known natural history of the thirteenth century, drawing together all manner of facts and fictions from Greek, Arab and Jewish sources. He was translated into English (On the Nature of Things) and published in a spectacular volume in 1494 following the first printing of the work (Paris) in 1470 (De proprietatibus rerum).

“THE Turtle hath that name of the voice, and is a simple bird as the culvour, but is chaste, far unlike the culvour, and if he loseth his make [i.e., mate], he seeketh not com- pany of any other, but goeth alone, and hath mind of the fellowship that is lost, and groaneth alway, and loveth and chooseth solitary places, and flieth much company of men…”

And this:

“He cometh in springing time and warneth of novelty of time with groaning voice. And in winter he loseth his feathers, and then he hideth him in hollow stocks. And against summer, in springing time, when his feathers spring again, he cometh out of his hole in the which he was hid, and seeketh convenable place and stead for to breed in. The Turtle layeth eggs twice in springing time, and not the third time, but if the first eggs be corrupt. Also the blood of her right wing is medicinable, as the blood of a swallow, and of a culvour or dove.”

And further, describing a magical, fireproofing stone that could be found in the mouth of the Turtle Dove:

“Amatides is a precious stone ; if a cloth be touched therewith, the cloth withstandeth fire and burneth not, though it be put therein ; but it receiveth brightness and seemeth the more clear. And withstandeth all evil doing of witches…IT is supposed that in the maw of the cock Turtle-dove this stone is to be found, and hath virtue to increase concord and love…”

And from “Albertus Magnus” (though probably by a follower of his), The Book of Secrets: Of the Virtues of Herbs, Stones, and Certain Beats, Also a Book of the Marvels of the World, the use of the Turtle Dove’s heart:

“IF the heart of a Turtle-dove be worn in the skin of a wolf, the wearer will never thenceforth be wanton. If its heart be burnt, and put on the eggs of any bird, never will it be possible that they should be hatched. And if its feet be hung on a tree, from thenceforth it will not bear fruit. And if a hairy place be anointed with its blood, and the water in which a mole has been boiled, the black hairs will fall off.”

Notes:
Seager’s work was meant to be a polite background to the natural history of the time, and not an exhaustive treatise. He says in the preface: “this book presents in a convenient form for reference a collection of the quaint theories about Natural History accepted by Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The work is meant to be rather a sketch than an exhaustive treatise, otherwise it would fill many volumes. The plan of the book is to give some illustration of each word mentioned by Shakespeare when there is anything remarkable to be noted about it. The term ” Natural History ” has been taken in its widest sense, as including not only fauna but flora, as well as some precious stones…”
·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Bad Ideas — Blank and Empty Things; A History of
Bad Ideas Department: Underground Cities, 1934

JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 880

I’m a sucker for cross sections, and this one has it all—nicely drawn, a glimpse into the possibilities of the future, and technoid removed from the realm of possibility. This article appears in Popular Science Monthly for June, 1934, and presents the possibility of extending downward into the earth for future city development. (as a matter of fact, the fabulous Modern Mechanix site has a similar story on display, asking the question “Are Skyscrapers Doomed?” for the same year, with the same engineers.) Well. It seems as though in this cross section that residences for people begin below the thirtieth floor, making living quarters starting at about 350’ down. The story goes that it would be possible to dig these cities up to about 6,000 feet into the earth, which of course is a long way down. Its difficult enough to drill an oil well hole to this depth; its difficult to imagine digging/outfitting/removing the earth from something—I’m not even sure what to call it—that was, potentially, thousands of feet deep and miles wide and long. That’s playing with figures hundreds of billions of cubic feet. Of construction. Underground. Well, I guess it wouldn’t be necessarily underground–it could be an excavated hole that is a mile or two wide and across and down, which would make the hole itself several times larger than the largest whole ever dug by humans, which is the Bingham Canyon Mine, a pit slope mine that is about .5miles x 2.5 miles. And then construction would begin after which the remaineder would be covered by earth.

Anyway, it is a big hole and a lot of construction, the volume of it at the beginner phases of say a cubic mile would be equal to the volume of 25,000 Great Pyramids or 5,400 Empire State Buildings. It would be easier probably to build a vertical city in part of the Grand Canyon and then cover it up–that’s an idea ou won’t see in print too often.

·Posted by :

JF Ptak

·in:

Architecture and Building — Bad Ideas