Bizarre submersible found floating off New York: Three men arrested

Breitbart ^ | 8-03-07 | Breitbart.com

[Anti-Hillary]

New York authorities were questioning three men found in a bizarre submersible vessel floating just off Manhattan on Friday, according to local reports. The men were discovered early Friday near the cruise terminal in Brooklyn where the massive ocean liner The Queen Mary II is moored, ABC television reported on its website.

When asked about the incident, a police spokeswoman declined to confirm the report or provide any further information, saying only that officers were at the scene.

What the three men were doing in the vessel -- which appeared to be spherical with a circular hatch on top -- was not immediately clear.

According to ABC, there was no indication that the discovery was terror-related -- a constant fear in New York following the September 11 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York.

ABC's radio affiliate WABC reported that the vessel was equipped with oxygen tanks.

[TheMole]

I was hoping it was going to be this:

[NucSubs]

Air tanks, yes. Not oxygen tanks.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

FOUND WITH 3 MEN IN NY HARBOR


MISSING FROM BAGHDAD MUSEUMS


COINCIDENCE?

[Bogtrotter52]

“Air tanks, yes. Not oxygen tanks.”

I stand corrected....especially after seeing your tag name.

[NucSubs]

Oh NP buddy. Just one of those niggling little details (as an ex Bubble-head and a SCUBA diver) that drive me batty.

[jetson]

nice!

[af_vet_rr]

The Hunley did indeed kill its crew three times, but it was a lot more sea worthy than this thing - this thing may have tried to kill it's crewmember, as they had to abandon it on its first and only run (if I remember correctly).

This reaffirms my belief that not only are the media mostly uneducated outside of learning how to speak into a camera and put on makeup, but they manage to find likeminded people.

They just had some reporter on with some guy there in NYC, and the guy was talking about how this thing could have been used to plant explosives on a ship. I'm thinking "why the hell would anybody go out and build a replica of a 230 year old wooden craft that never actually managed to do any damage to any ship, and would take weeks, if not months to build, and was not very maneuverable, when they could just spend $1000 and get a complete SCUBA outfit off of ebay and do much more damage". Hell, they could have rented a speedboat for a few hundred bucks and loaded it up and rammed it into the Queen Mary or whatever, and it would have been cheaper, easier, and more precise.

This reporter and this guy, it was the blind leading the blind (or the reporter found the only guy dumb enough to think somebody would use a replica of the Turtle in a terrorist attack and thought it would be funny to put him on the air).

[af_vet_rr]

Oh NP buddy. Just one of those niggling little details (as an ex Bubble-head and a SCUBA diver) that drive me batty.

Not to derail, but if you get a chance, catc the 'Dirty Jobs' episode on Discovery where they had a couple of guys in Oklahoma that were noodling for catfish, and were using regular air compressors for their oxygen supply while they were down on the bottom of a lake. Redneck engineering at its finest.

[kalee]

ping

[bert]

An earlier thread said WW II type sub. Doesn’t seem to be that.

[dljordan]

“I always wanted to get one of these when I was a kid.”

Man! Where did you dig that up? I remember those and there was a tank that somebody sold to. Ah, the good old days.

[bioqubit]

According to CBS news, the guy is a sub buff and was working to make a replica of the Turtle. Only he had no propulsion system of any kind.

And this guy’s day job? Tatoo Artist.

[Fido969]

You made my day!

:-)

[wolficatZ]

Wow, that’s the actual sub from the 60’s comic book ad..

[x]

Man! Where did you dig that up? I remember those and there was a tank that somebody sold to. Ah, the good old days.

[x]

You put it together and it was a cardboard box with printing on the outside to vaguely suggest it was a submarine.

My parents told me not even to think about it. They said we'd probably drown if we got one and tried to use it.

Kind of disappointing, but I played with it for weeks.

Nice to hear the upside. If we'd known, we'd have taken a cardboard box and written "submarine" on it.

We'd probably have drowned anyway, but we'd have saved the $6.98.

[x]

but it would take a YEAR to save $6.98

;-)

LOL! It certainly seemed that way.

[x]

It was an educational toy. Kids leaned that a "working" submarine didn't have to move or go under, in, or near the water. It was enough that in someway the missiles or torpedos "worked."

Nowadays there might be some legal trouble with the ads, but 30 or 40 years ago parents would have given much -- even the princely sum of $6.98 -- to teach their children such a lesson.

Thanks for the photo, evets. I always wondered what it actually looked like.

[Alex Murphy]

I always wanted to get one of these when I was a kid.

When I was young, I wanted one too - had dreams of cruising around the pond/lake nearby. For years, I used to think the below was one. I couldn't understand why there were no diving planes, rudders, propellers, periscopes, or even entry hatches! I also couldn't understand why so many people had them in their back yards, when there was no body of water nearby!