Talk:British Rail flying saucer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Did You Know An entry from British Rail flying saucer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Station Platform ??

The article says that the flying saucer design "started as a proposal for a raiseable station platform". I can't find any evidence for this in the cited newspaper stories or patent. The patent uses the word "platform" and the newspaper stories use the phrase "lifting platform", but I think the word "platform" here is a synonym for "vehicle" - as in Hiller Flying Platform - and nothing to do with station platforms. Unless someone digs up evidence for the "raiseable station platform" theory in the next few days, I will amend the article. Gandalf61 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The expression "lifting platform" can be found in a Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2083429,00.html The text and drawing in the patent refer to a platform (No. 10). This platform is a frame to which the rest of the vehicle is mounted. No station platform! Please correct the article. --Siffler 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of Charles Osmond Frederick

According to the newspaper articles the concept was worked out by Charles Osmond Frederick, who was an engineer with the research centres of British Rail. Does any reader has any idea how to get at least some basic information on his life? --Siffler 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Rail

It would have never been on time anyway.Mahakala 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth

Is this a nihilartikel? Wareq

I don't know why you would say that when a set of references is provided in the article. 79.76.232.227 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
They could have been fake references - but they aren't. Amazingly, this is true. Bonus points for using the word nihilartikel in an actual conversation though! SteveBaker (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)