From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #79 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 2 December 1993 Volume 04 : Number 079 In this issue: A letter from William B. Scott (AW&ST) Aerofax Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Re: French stealth planes ? Re: French stealth planes ? Re: A letter from William B. Scott (AW&ST) air breathing SSTO Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Re: What's wrong with the land grab? US OTH-B in NW US Re: air breathing SSTO Re: What's wrong with the land grab? USAF OTH Where, oh where... Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Re: What's wrong with the land grab? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Wed, 01 Dec 93 16:23:00 MET Subject: A letter from William B. Scott (AW&ST) Many of you have heard of reports of a huge and silent craft, more or less triangular, which (probably) has been seen near Edwards AFB and elsewhere. It is for example quoted in "America's new secret aircraft", _Popular Mechanics_, December 1991. Question: why AW&ST did not write anything about that? A colleague of mine managed to get an answer (snail mail) from William B. Scott himself: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY Suite 922 1200 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3802 Telephone 202/383-2300 September 23, 1993 [name and address deleted] Our New York office forwarded your letter to me, since I wrote most of the stories you referenced. I have heard multiple reports of large, slow-moving, quiet aircraft in the western deserts--including a good report from a reservist at Edwards AFB who saw it late at night over the main base runway. In fact, I first proposed the theory that the craft could be a "stealthy" airship used as a receiving platform for bistatic radar. The concept was discussed with several contacts, as well as colleagues who work for other publications. Aviation Week never reported this particular craft because I was never satisfied that I had enough confirmation of its existence. My other stories were based on VERY reliable evidence and backed by people I had known for many years. Most of them had worked with me in the flight test business and their veracity was unquestioned. In contrast, several reports of the large airship-like aircraft were from sources I had not known previously. While I had no reason to doubt what they had seen, neither could I cross-check and verify their reports to my full satisfaction. Without that, I would never write a story for publication in Aviation Week. Since my transfer to Washington, D.C., I am no longer in the right places to see or hear about this and other aircraft. Unfortunately, our magazine simply does not have the resources to chase these secret vehicles right now. As a result, we have had to focus our limited staff on other priorities. I hope to eventually have an opportunity to "resume the chase". Thank you for your interest. Regards, William B. Scott Sr. National Editor - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, for those who have not read the Popular Mechanics article, here are the relevant excerpts: '' [...] But others tell stories of lights that streek and maneuver across the heavens at impossible speeds, or triangular shapes that prowl silently overhead.'' [stuff deleted] '' [...] Finally, a black, silent, boomerang-shaped vehicle that stretches between 600 and 800 ft. across and performs circus-pony maneuvers at airspeeds as low as 20 knots.'' [stuff deleted] ''The big wing. Meanwhile, several Antelope Valley residents say they've seen a craft that simply strains credulity. According to reports over the past two years, a vast black flying wing, estimated at between 600 and 800 ft. in width, has passed silently over city streets, empty desert and rural freeways. The craft moved so slowly one observer said he could jog along with it. A pattern of seemingly random white lights on the vehicle's black underside provided "constellation camouflage" against the starry sky. Observers who followed the craft long enough detailed unlikely maneuvers in which the vehicle stopped, rotated in place and hovered vertically, presenting a thin trailing edge to the ground. Although such sightings encourage those who link the military with unearthly technology, a mammoth, quiet flying wing may have a conventional explanation: It could be a lighter-than-air craft pushed by slow-turning propellers. Certainly, such a vehicle could elude Doppler radar by slowing to a crawl. Alternatively, the fact that the craft holds station vertically suggests that it might serve as a huge reflector for a bistatic radar system. Other possible missions include troop delivery or covert surveillance'' [end of excerpts] J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 10:03:16 EST Subject: Aerofax To anyone interested, I called Aerofax AGAIN to find out why I didn't receive my book that was supposed to be shipped a week ago Thursday (Lockheed's Skunk-Works..The last 50 Years). He said that they still have not received them from the printer. Again, he said hopefully by the end of the week (I quietly snickered). - -- ------==========**********==========------ Douglas J. Tiffany u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings 1202 Industrial Drive Van Wert, Ohio 45891 (419)238-9533 Fax: (419)238-2267 "Even a fish stays out of trouble when he keeps his mouth shut!" ------------------------------ From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 10:29 EST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? >Let's talk about "right to know", not the government's feeling that I don't >have a need to know. As a taxpayer, I have a right to know how and where >the government is spending my money. As someone else mentioned, this >right is defined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. >If the US government doesn't want to tell me how they are spending -MY- >money, how is that different from being robbed by a street gang that says, >"Just give us the money and don't ask any questions!" ?? > >Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com You have no right to know. Someone mentioned the book BLANK CHECK. As I remember from reading it (I read it a while ago), an ordinary citizen asked for a full accounting of how is tax dollars were spent, what he got back did not include money spent on black projects. He ended up going as far as the supreme court - highest court in the land - to try to get the info on how his money was spent. The court ruled that he was not authorized to sue his government over this matter, the "proper channels" are to go to his elected officials, _they_ are entitled to know. - -Chris ------------------------------ From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Wed, 01 Dec 93 17:15:54 MET Subject: Re: French stealth planes ? >Thats interesting! Is there any chance for you to scan this picture? >Ahh, I gess there is the copyright.. Uhhmmm If you scan it and send it >to me..? >John Erling Blad (Tue, 30 Nov 1993 18:37:43 +0100) The only thing I could do would be to send you a xerox, but the colors would disappear and it would really look "black"... In my opinion, the best would be that you (yourself or via your library) ask: Air&Cosmos 6, rue Anatole de la Forge 75858 Paris Cedex 17 France phone 33-1-47-66-46-10 fax 33-1-42-27-78-08 telex 651 108 COSMAIR-PARIS The relevant issue is number 1430, week 14-20 June 1993 (in French: Semaine du 14 au 20 juin 1993, Numero 1430) J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 18:29:57 +0100 Subject: Re: French stealth planes ? >I have heard multiple reports of large, slow-moving, quiet aircraft in >the western deserts--including a good report from a reservist at Edwards >AFB who saw it late at night over the main base runway. In fact, I first >proposed the theory that the craft could be a "stealthy" airship used as >a receiving platform for bistatic radar. The concept was discussed with >several contacts, as well as colleagues who work for other publications. Just a wild gess but what about a platform for bistatic reception of OTH radars, that is radars operating at HF (3-30Mhz). Such a radar mesure about the same as this "thing". The main problem with this technology is the low surviveability of the radarsites because of thecombination of low mobility and big target area. One solution is to place the radar in something thats move but the only thing big enough is a boat. Despite the physical size, such an antenna array is not heavy so why not place it inside an airship? To maintain stealtyness you can make the radar bistatic so you minimalize the chance of detektion, but the chance of detection by an enemy is not very high because you can operate it far away from any frontline. The range of the australian OTH is several 1000 km I think. (6000? I think it matched the earts radius.) John ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 18:36:05 +0100 Subject: Re: A letter from William B. Scott (AW&ST) Hi! Some stuff I found in my own root directory.. I must clean it up someday.. *********************************************************** From "sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)" Sun Aug 8 10:56:24 1993 Flags: 000000000011 Return-Path: Received: from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu by ifi.uio.no with SMTP id for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1993 10:56:22 +0200 Received: by harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA25931; Sun, 8 Aug 93 03:30:18 -0500 Received: from bank.ecn.purdue.edu by harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA25920; Sun, 8 Aug 93 03:30:15 -0500 Received: from utsa86.utsa.edu by bank.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA04235; Sun, 8 Aug 93 03:30:10 -0500 Received: from lonestar.utsa.edu by UTSA86.UTSA.EDU with SMTP; Sun, 8 Aug 1993 3:29:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by lonestar.utsa.edu (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @utsa86.utsa.edu:skunk-works@ecn.purdue.edu id AA21051; Sun, 8 Aug 93 03:29:08 -0500 From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) Message-Id: <9308080829.AA21051@lonestar.utsa.edu> Subject: Re: AW&ST/Popular Mechanics/Jane's Defence Weekly To: hanneton@magbio.ens.fr (Sylvain HANNETON) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 3:29:07 CDT Cc: skunk-works@ecn.purdue.edu In-Reply-To: <9308072032.AA19056@horus.ens.fr>; from "Sylvain HANNETON" at Aug 7, 93 10:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6] Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Hello! Pardon me for sounding like a UFO nut :-), but in February of 1981, when I was living in San Bernardino, Ca. , I saw something matching this description flying overhead one night: > "America's New Secret Aircraft", Popular Mechanics, December 1991 : > > "The big wing : > Meanwhile, several Antelope Valley residents say they've seen a craft that > simply strains credulity. > According to reports over the past two years, a vast black flying wing, > estimated at between 600 and 800 ft. in width, has passed silently over > city streets, empty desert and rural freeways. The craft moved so slowly > one observer said he could jog along with it. A pattern of seemingly random > white lights on the vehicle's black underside provided "constellation > camouflage" against the starry sky. Observers who followed the craft long The object I saw was like this: black enough to blend in with the dark sky (moonless night btw), and the first sign of it I saw were indeed what appeared to be dim, white running lights outlining the object, although initally I saw only a few lights at a time, moving very slowly. I thought at first it was a group of several craft at high altitude, until I saw most of the constellation of Orion blotted out by this big, black 'thing' approaching >From the south. I could not tell what size it was, or exactly what altitude it was at, and I don't seem to recall any noise as it passed overhead, although I might have heard faint engine sounds. But I definitely didn't hear any 'conventional' aircraft sound. The object kept heading northward, and dissapeared from sight as it neared the San Bernardino Mountain range north of the city. There was another incident early one morning in December of 1983 where several friends and I saw something at a high altitude gleaming in the sunlight, leaving no vapor trail, and we could just barely make out a triangular shape. > enough detailed unlikely maneuvers in which the vehicle stopped, rotated in > place and hovered vertically, presenting a thin trailing edge to the ground. Now, I didn't see any unusual manuevers. > Although such sightings encourage those who link the military with unearthly > technology, a mammoth, quiet flying wing may have a conventional explanation :> it could be a lighter-than-air craft pushed by slow-turning propellers. > Certainly, such a vehicle could elude Doppler radar by slowing to a crawl. > Alternatively, the fact that the craft holfs station vertically suggests that > it might serve as a huge reflector for a bistatic radar system. Other possible> missions include troop delivery or covert surveillance" For 12 years I've been wondering what I saw that night, and one theory that I came up with was that perhaps it might have been some sort of exotic airship. But where would something that big be hidden during the day? > > Thanks, and sorry for the bad English and the typos. > > Emmanuel Marin. > hanneton@frulm63.bitnet > Your English and text seemed ok :-) later! Simon ************************************************************** 12 years is a long time but compared to when the russian built the big OTH radar outside Moscov.. well perhaps. Anyway, if it is an OTH radar how can it be that none have reported observations of it in the HF-spectrum? John ------------------------------ From: rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 09:56:22 PST Subject: air breathing SSTO Look, I can't answer as to why hvanderbilt (of SAS) hasn't responded to your email. I rarely attempt to communicate with him. Occasionally, I get a response. I would imagine that he has his hands quite full enough advocating rocket-only SSTO. He might be afraid of diluting his efforts by advocating BOTH rocket and air-breathing SSTO. My view of it is similar. We can relatively easily build rocket-based SSTO *NOW*, with CURRENT, thoroughly-PROVEN engine technology. That is NOT true of air-breathing. If resource and political limitations were not a factor, I'd say to go for both. Right now, we know how to build a DC-3. We also *think* we know how to build a DC-8. If we only have enough political clout to build one (and I'm not sure that even *that* is true), then I say we had better advocate the machine that has the lesser risk, and can fly sooner. Once our DC-3 proves itself, we'll easily have the clout to get the DC-8 (and 747, etc.) built. ------------------------------ From: Rich Thomson Date: Wed, 01 Dec 93 11:26:42 MST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? >Let's talk about "right to know", not the government's feeling that I don't >have a need to know. [...] >Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com In message <05931201152950/0004854540NA3EM@mcimail.com> Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes: > You have no right to know. [...] The [Supreme] court ruled that he > was not authorized to sue his government over this matter, the "proper > channels" are to go to his elected officials, _they_ are entitled to know. So I suppose if the Supreme Court ruled that we had no right to freedom of speech, we wouldn't have this right? Poppycock. Rights -- the right to free speech, the right to practice one's religion, the right to dispose of one's earnings as one sees fit, etc. -- are _inalienable_ they come from within, not without. We have these rights because we exist, not because the government sees fit to "allow" them to us. The Supreme Court is just a group of nine people who decide disputes -- they are not Gods who give us our rights. We do have a right to know what our money is being spent on, regardless of the opinion of the Supreme Court or any other 9 yahoos you can find. -- Rich - -- Between stimulus and response is the will to choose. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IRC: _Rich_ Rich Thomson Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com Fractal Freak ------------------------------ From: Bernie Rosen Date: Wed, 01 Dec 93 10:42:19 PST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? In msg <05931201152950/0004854540NA3EM@mcimail.com> you wrote: > >>Let's talk about "right to know", not the government's feeling that I don't >>have a need to know. As a taxpayer, I have a right to know how and where >>the government is spending my money. As someone else mentioned, this >>right is defined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. >>If the US government doesn't want to tell me how they are spending -MY- >>money, how is that different from being robbed by a street gang that says, >>"Just give us the money and don't ask any questions!" ?? > > You have no right to know. Someone mentioned the book BLANK CHECK. As I >remember from reading it (I read it a while ago), an ordinary citizen asked >for a full accounting of how is tax dollars were spent, what he got back did >not include money spent on black projects. He ended up going as far as the >supreme court - highest court in the land - to try to get the info on how >his money was spent. The court ruled that he was not authorized to sue his >government over this matter, the "proper channels" are to go to his elected >officials, _they_ are entitled to know. Without doubting the veracity of the above statement, can anyone cite the actual case name. I'm curious as to just how this was worded. In general, in order to permit elected officials to be advised by their constituency, the constituency needs to know what the issues are. But then we have issues that are "in the interest of national security," and the rules change. Where some of our money goes seems to fall in this latter category. Bernie - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - brosen@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames AIS Office 233-7 (415) 604-6558 Moffett Field, CA 94035 ------------------------------ From: Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 19:53:38 +0100 Subject: US OTH-B in NW US I think USAF has two OTH-B radars in the US. That one in Maine covers a lot of the Northern hemosphere. One funny thing with OTH-B is that you can't see something which is nearer than 500 km. Why ? Because the radio waves must get down before you can see anything. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:36:21 -0800 Subject: Re: air breathing SSTO Russ Schnapp >Look, I can't answer as to why hvanderbilt (of SAS) hasn't responded to >your email. I rarely attempt to communicate with him. Occasionally, I >get a response. > >I would imagine that he has his hands quite full enough advocating >rocket-only SSTO. He might be afraid of diluting his efforts by >advocating BOTH rocket and air-breathing SSTO. Sorry about the confusion in the question. It didn't come across right. My intention was to ask IF you knew why SAS wasn't also advocating airbreathing. Roj on your answer. >My view of it is similar. We can relatively easily build rocket-based >SSTO *NOW*, with CURRENT, thoroughly-PROVEN engine technology. I personally have FAITH :) that a SSTO rocket could be built starting tomorow and eventually flown into LEO, ASSUMING payload is not important. Imagine if DC-X had done that! :) I say FAITH because it has NOT been done yet. The rocket equation indicates what propellant mass fraction is required and we think we can construct a vehicle that adheres to what the rocket equation dictates. But, until someone actually builds a vehicle, with all the tiny details, we can't actually say it's soup, much less "relatively easy". Without having the experience of actually optimizing such a vehicle for SSTO it's difficult feeling good about a specific target payload fraction for SSTO. They haven't published much about SX-2, but this is why I believe they want to build SX-2 and declare it non-SSTO up front. They want to keep the SSTO optimization step for the final (post SX-2) phase. Makes sense. But I don't read out of that that it's easy. > That >is NOT true of air-breathing. I am not advocating a complete airbreathing SSTO mission. This is the problem with many DC program enthusiasts. They're blind :) to the advanced ROCKET research that has been conducted in the past 25 years that happens to do SOME airbreathing. Many SSTO airbreathing techniques are based on rockets. As you said Russ, rockets are the ONLY proven high hypersonic and orbital capable engines right now. So the desire of many hypersonic and SSTO airbreathing propulsion researchers is to base these advanced engines on rocket technology. These engines are really rockets, but for some reason rocket enthusiasts don't understand that. Perhaps because many of these engines have been classified in the past, or they come from places like Marquardt which is a haven of 'unholy' airbreathing people :) . All I'm saying is that I feel it necessary and desireable to also investigate these advanced rockets for possible application to a DC type of vehicle. I would hope that SAS or somebody would also advocate this. If the DC folks won't look at it then maybe the NASA SSTO team will. What DC-X has proven is that a vehicle can be taken off and landed vertically. It will also prove certain maneuvers. But such things are independent of propulsion. DC-X could be a traditional rocket, an airbreathing rocket, or a pure airbreather, as long as thrust to weight is adequate. Some of these new 90K lb thrust turbofans being done for 777 would be quite interesting in a DC kind of transport vehicle. Hmmm ... . Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 12:05:00 -0800 Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Paul McGinnis wrote: >>Let's talk about "right to know", not the government's feeling that I don't >>have a need to know. As a taxpayer, I have a right to know how and where >>the government is spending my money. As someone else mentioned, this >>right is defined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. >> ... Christopher Zguris responded: > You have no right to know. Someone mentioned the book BLANK CHECK. As I >remember from reading it (I read it a while ago), an ordinary citizen asked >for a full accounting of how is tax dollars were spent, what he got back did >not include money spent on black projects. He ended up going as far as the >supreme court - highest court in the land - to try to get the info on how >his money was spent. The court ruled that he was not authorized to sue his >government over this matter, the "proper channels" are to go to his elected >officials, _they_ are entitled to know. Bernie Rosen responds: >Without doubting the veracity of the above statement, can anyone cite >the actual case name. I'm curious as to just how this was worded. In >general, in order to permit elected officials to be advised by their >constituency, the constituency needs to know what the issues are. But >then we have issues that are "in the interest of national security," and >the rules change. Where some of our money goes seems to fall in this >latter category. Yes that case was in "Blank Check" Chris, it was the last chapter if I recall, and you're kindof correct. I'll look it up tonight and post the details, but I believe the plaintiff was allowed to sue, and the case went all the way through the Court system and the Supreme Court did hear the case. The issue was an article of the U.S. Consitiution that reads something like: "The government shall from time to time publish an accounting of monies spent ... ." The plaintiff wanted a gross dollar amount of money spent on the CIA. Not detail, but a gross dollar amount, if I recall. First off, I don't think you're advocating that citizens should not have a right to know how their money is being spent, but you are quite correct that this case took what seems to be quite a bit away from us regular citizens! The Court ruled by one vote (Earl Warren - thanks Earl) that the interpretation of that article of the U.S. Constitution is that Congress must be informed through their appropriate committees!! NOT U.S. citizens!! I don't read it that way personally either, but that is why Tim Weiner put that case as the last chapter of "Blank Check"! It IS rather shocking! As we all went about our business, this is what was decided for us! Blank Check is a definite read for anybody interested in Black Projects, that is if you can finish it. People have told me that they have been so depressed by it that they couldn't finish it! It's quite an eye opener! I believe it won a Pulitzer or Tim Weiner previously won a Pulitzer or something like that. Larry ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 12:56:39 PST Subject: USAF OTH >"sp2stes1@ida.his.se" "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" 1-DEC-1993 15:03:00.67 >I think USAF has two OTH-B radars in the US. The original plan would have included, i think three sites, maybe more. That one in Maine covers a lot of the Northern hemosphere. Been there, done that. 8)>> Transmitter in Moscow (really), Control in Bangor, Receiver near Cutler. (I may have Tx and Rx reversed....) IEEE Maine Chapter organized tours some years back. Site was ALWAYS developmental, never part of NORAD, never orpational. It was "stood down" somewhat almost immediately after the Cold War "ended". A few things on the recent thread: OTH is NOT the only bistatic radar. An airship would be useful for any airborn bistatic. USN had nonrigids with radar dishes _inside_ in the '50s. While the "woodpecker" effect of the RUSSIAN OTH is well known, the USAF (actually, GE) had a more varied "vocabulary" with programmable pulse rate, etc. Said to sound more like a chainsaw... 8)>> ONNA other hand, a MODERN OTH, might well use spread spectrum to be almost "invisible" to the casual listener. Sort of stealth radar. As to where the "big ship" went during daylight, think about hollow mountains. Or simply deflating it, and storing it in a semitrailer. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 13:27:07 -0800 Subject: Where, oh where... could they hide a big airship? Just take it up to 50000 ft and hang some lights under it... The lights would be tailored to present the same amount of light that would normally filter through from that level... The allies experimented with such a device during WWII. Supposedly, active cammoflage is one of the hot items in some of the black projects. Rick - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ for (i=0;i<8;P("\n"),i++) for(j=0;j%6?(i>3?P(" "):(j==i||j==6-i?P("#"):P(" "))):P("#"),j<7;j++); Remember, Just Say No to C... ------------------------------ From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 18:34 EST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? rthomson@dsd.es.com writes: >So I suppose if the Supreme Court ruled that we had no right to >freedom of speech, we wouldn't have this right? Poppycock. Rights -- >the right to free speech, the right to practice one's religion, the >right to dispose of one's earnings as one sees fit, etc. -- are >_inalienable_ they come from within, not without. We have these >rights because we exist, not because the government sees fit to "allow" >them to us. The Supreme Court is just a group of nine people who >decide disputes -- they are not Gods who give us our rights. > >We do have a right to know what our money is being spent on, >regardless of the opinion of the Supreme Court or any other 9 yahoos >you can find. Yes on paper is our _inalienable_ write, quote from the constitution etc.etc. The cold hard facts are in practical terms you can yell and scream all you want, if it's secret the government isn't going to tell you. In the case of the CIA's secret spending (I would assume it would apply to other secret agencies as well), the spending is added on to other budgets, a little added here and a little added there (according to BLANK CHECK, that is what William Richardson found so objectionable- I think most people would) is what made knowing how his and our money is spent impossible. I don't know who you're anger is directed at, I have simply written an actual - -factual- example. I'm sorry if we're dealing in fiction in this group; you're right we do have that right, excuse me I have to go yell that out my window => WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW HOW OUR MONEY IS BEING SPENT! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW HOW OUR MONEY IS BEING SPENT! Go preach to congress were it may do some good. ------------------------------ From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 22:03 EST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? I wrote: > You have no right to know. Someone mentioned the book BLANK CHECK. As I >remember from reading it (I read it a while ago), an ordinary citizen asked >for a full accounting of how is tax dollars were spent, what he got back did >not include money spent on black projects. He ended up going as far as the >supreme court - highest court in the land - to try to get the info on how >his money was spent. The court ruled that he was not authorized to sue his >government over this matter, the "proper channels" are to go to his elected >officials, _they_ are entitled to know. And Bernie(brosen@ames.arc.nasa.gov) wrote: >Without doubting the veracity of the above statement, can anyone cite >the actual case name. I'm curious as to just how this was worded. In >general, in order to permit elected officials to be advised by their >constituency, the constituency needs to know what the issues are. But >then we have issues that are "in the interest of national security," and >the rules change. Where some of our money goes seems to fall in this >latter category. > >Bernie I reread the chapter in BLANK CHECK (Chapter 9, An Open Book, Pages 214-231). In summary, the whole case started by William Richardson in 1967, when Richardson read a story in his newspaper about the CIA that said they were funding organizations in the US. Richardson wrote to the US Government Printing Office and requested a copy of the CIA budget in compliance with Article 1, Section 9 Clause 7 of the United States Constitution. Three months later the Dept. of the Treasury's deputy commissioner sent copies of the overall federal budget were sent to Richardson, but that did not include full details of the CIA's spending. Richardson sent along another letter, again citing the constitution, and requested an explanation of the government's position. This letter was written as a direct challenge. The response came back a month later and basically said Richardson had no right to challenge the system of secrecy. Richardson composed his response, and filed it with the clerk of the court in the federal courthouse in Pittsburgh. This became William B. Richardson v. United States of America. After going through the courts, Richardson finally reached the the Supreme and, on June 25, 1974, he lost. The release of the information Richardson sought was up to Congress, congress passed the secrecy laws. If Richardson didn't like the laws he would have to take it up with congress. - -Chris P.S.- I sent this yesterday in response to Bernie's (brosen@ames.arc.nasa.gov) message, it didn't appear in Skunk Works Digest V4 #79, so I'm sending it again. If it comes through twice I apologize in advance. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #79 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).