From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #267 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 12 May 1995 Volume 05 : Number 267 In this issue: Black helos SR-71 to Mildenhall? Re: SR-71 to Mildenhall? Re: How secret are skunk-works' secrets? How secret are skunk-works' secrets? 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: The Space Wastrel Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Black helos > If you saw the black helos typically when there was a carrier air wing > around, then this will give even more credence to the report. The entire > wing of aircraft from the USS Carl Vinson participated in Operation: Roving > Sands this year at Roswell Industrial Air Center, New Mexico. Actually, the USS Carl Vinson was in port in Perth, Western Australia, on at least one occasion when black helos were seen (though this is going back almost ten years). I particularly remember the Carl Vinson because a friend of mine met one of the crew. I don't specifically recall the noise level of the helos but don't remember it being noteworthy: so I think that they were making a normal amount of noise for four or five helos. #######################The Space Wastrel in Washington####################### At scenes of slayings, wailing girlfriends and wives in maternity clothes try to break through police barricades, and young women with small children grab at body bags. At funerals, pregnant young women fling themselves on coffins, wailing in sorrow. ######################The Washington Post, 10 June 1993###################### ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Thu, 11 May 95 19:04:19 +0100 Subject: SR-71 to Mildenhall? Hi Skunkworkers, There is a comment in the latest copy of AFM (UK magazine), another excellent edition, that there is at present some speculation that an SR-71 will visit Mildenhall in July. Does anybody know where this rumour has come from? Is there anything in it? Mary, has the B model been used by the air force yet? Will Lockheed have completed the overhaul/update on the first A model in time? Questions, questions! I hope that the speculation is correct but somehow I think if it is going to happen it will be later then July. Regards Adrian Thurlow Technology Integration / Det.4 9th SRW \ B48 Room 5 / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. adrian.thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 21:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 to Mildenhall? Adrian Thurlow mentioned comments made in the latest copy of AFM (which is always about 2 months late here in Michigan *sigh*) about speculation that an SR-71 will visit Mildenhall in July. I have no information about that, but here is a small article from AW&ST May 1, 1995, p. 18: NEWS BREAKS "SR-71A FLIES AGAIN" "Restored Air Force SR-71A made its first flight last week, creating a visible start to reactivation of the U.S.' penetrating aerial reconnaissance capability. The aircraft, tail number 17971, took off Apr. 26 from Air Force Plant 42 at Palmdale, Calif., after being renovated at Lockheed Martin's facility there (AW&ST Apr. 10, p. 22). It was flown by NASA pilot Edward Schneider and flight test engineer Marta Bohn-Meyer. NASA pilots will bring Air Force crews back to proficiency. No. 17971 was assigned to NASA and had been in storage since 1990 at neighboring Edwards AFB until it made a 5-min. ferry flight to Palmdale on Jan. 12. Installation of a data link in the other USAF SR-71A will delay delivery to about Aug. 18. The two SR-71s are to be ready for operational deployment by Sept. 1." That would be considerably after July. In the latest AW&ST, from May 8, 1995, there are also some interesting articles about the status of the F-22, LADC's JAST model, B-2 procurement and some new UAVs. Included in the article about the LADC's JAST, is a nice photograph of the Skunk Works ASTOVL 86% scale model. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 21:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: How secret are skunk-works' secrets? Byron Weber wrote: >An investigator friend called me for help with a case. He was >asked to conduct an asset search of a respondent for the petitioner >in a divorse action. The respondent was a career skunk-works >employee. The petitioner had no idea where the respondent physically >worked, just that the respondent was employed by the skunk-works, >possibly in Palmdale and the respondent occassionally took three day >trips on a boat to and from an unknown place. There was no phone >number for the respondent's work and no way to contact the respondent >during work hours. The petitioner filed a separate tax return and had >never seen a tax return for the respondent. The respondent always >used cash and had no known bank accounts. The petitioner estimated >the respondent earned $90k a year and based on the respondents >expenses gave an estimate of the respondents savings which were >substantial. The asset search found next to nothing. There were no local >savings accounts or credit cards, no loans, businesses, licenses, >leases, accidents, civil or criminal cases or other records. The >original loan note on the couple's house had the petitioner's name >along with someone else's name unknown to the petitioner. One wonders what sort of marriage that was! >The respondent had one known property in another state. That is all. A >search of civil court cases didn't even find a filing for the divorse. So those evil people stole her divorce filing papers too? tsktsktsk. >My friend asked me to verify the almost complete lack of >record for the respondent. I searched as many as 15 separate >databases, each with many millions of records, there was nothing. >A wider area search was initiated and a possible savings account >was found in the proximity of the current NRO headquarters, but >this could not be substantiated since the name on the account was >incomplete and there was no signature card or social security >number. Sometime later a social security number was associated >with the account which turned out to be that of a sibling of the >respondent. At a deposition, the respondent would be forced to provide information and paperwork concerning his financial status. Where he is/was employed, how much he earned during his marriage and all his other assets, including accounts, credit cards, property, etc. This information has nothing to do with his status as employee of LADC, if he was really employed there, and not by the CIA, NSA, etc. He would be under oath in a civil court -- and I doubt that his financial status would be protected by any "National Security Reasons". >It is one thing to hide secrets, like at Groom Lake, and another >to manipulate city, county, state, federal, property, banking and >other financial records for one individual who knows secrets, >undoubtedly SCI at that. They are very serious. Now this is the biggest joke! Who said that anybody manipulated any records ?!? If he has credit cards, bank accounts or anything like that under another name -- I wouldn't be surprised. But I sincerly doubt, the "Government" would even care if there are records. Maybe he is an employee of the CIA, NSA or who knows? The fact that you didn't turn up any records doesn't mean they were "manipulated". Maybe they never existed? Maybe he was (had to be) careful with his financial habits, to not become a target (of espionage, blackmail, or whatever). Why do Americans always see the evil government or other sinister organizations behind anything. *sigh* - -- Andreas (not long enough in the USA to pass as a (paranoid) American.) - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: The Space Wastrel Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 22:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: How secret are skunk-works' secrets? Delurking is obviously becoming a bad habit of mine... > From: chosa@chosa.win.net (BYRON WEBER) > Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 18:43:16 > Subject: How secret are skunk-works' secrets? > > Ben Rich gave us a pretty good idea how far the gov. guys go to > protect their assets. They are serious, very serious. > An investigator friend called me for help with a case. He was > asked to conduct an asset search of a respondent for the petitioner > in a divorse action. The respondent was a career skunk-works > employee. I thought for a while about whether to bother responding to this rubbish and then decided that, as it was still annoying me a few hours later, I may as well say a few words. I work in the SCI world. To do so I need a TOP SECRET clearance. In order to obtain a TOP SECRET clearance I have to have a verifiable identity and personal history. People do not get security clearances by maintaining and creating false identities, hiding income and assets, operating false bank accounts and so on (as described by Byron Weber). I would suggest that the following is a much more likely scenario for the respondent described by Byron Weber: a) The respondent does not work for the skunk-works or any other organization that requires a TOP SECRET clearance b) The respondent is a con artist who fooled the petitioner into believing that the respondent worked for the skunk-works c) The respondent has probably significantly defrauded the petitioner (if not financially, then emotionally) d) The respondent, at this moment, is probably telling the next victim that they can't be told about his terribly secret job with CIA/skunk works/name the sexy black program/organization let alone the work telephone number. If we're lucky, the respondent will turn up on Unsolved Mysteries one of these days. If we're unlucky, it'll keep on cluttering up the digest (and my apologies for moving off topic). Back to lurking. TSW #######################The Space Wastrel in Washington####################### At scenes of slayings, wailing girlfriends and wives in maternity clothes try to break through police barricades, and young women with small children grab at body bags. At funerals, pregnant young women fling themselves on coffins, wailing in sorrow. ######################The Washington Post, 10 June 1993###################### ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #267 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).