From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #303 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 14 June 1995 Volume 05 : Number 303 In this issue: Re: A suggested UFO "filter" Sukhoi book UFO's, Call for a vote ? Re:Call for vote. fishy U-2 story? Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? UFO's, Call for a vote ? Re: Details... Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #302 Re: NATO Code Names Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 The "UFO filter". Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? Re: A suggested UFO "filter" Re: A suggested UFO "filter" 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: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: A suggested UFO "filter" > Here's a suggested rule of thumb for UFO-related posting which I think would > satisfy 95% of the active contributors of this group: > > A posting regarding UFOs will be within the charter of the board IF AND ONLY > IF included in the posting is a hypothesis relating the sighting report to > terrestrial technologies. (In this way the hypothesis can generate > constructive scientific discussion.) The original poster may only suggest an > extraterrestrial source AFTER the sighting has drawn comments from other > posters. I think it should generally be left up to each individual reader to "suggest extraterrestrial sources" (if they so desire) on their own or in other forums, since for the moment at least, posting that sort of speculation would not appear to fit into the charter of this list. However, the subject of "unexplained aerial phenomena" could at times be quite relevant to this group, but the focus here is in relating such things to the area of advanced aircraft development projects, not to invading space-aliens. ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:56:52 +0100 Subject: Sukhoi book Hi all Thanks for the info on the Sukhoi Su-100 (T-4) bomber. Many of those who replied requested publishing info and here it is: Title: OKB Sukhoi Authors: Valdimir Antonov, Yefim Gordon, Nikolai Gordyukov, Valadimir Yakolev and Vyacheslav Zenkin with Jay Miller Publisher: Midland Publications Address: Unit3, Hinckley, Leics. LE10 1YF United Kingdom Telephone: (01455) 847256 Fax: (01455) 841805 Due out: Summer 1995 Price: 29.95 UK Pounds I would guess that it will be available in the US at sometime. The Summer 1995 date made me smile - English weather being what it is I think our Summer was one hot day two weeks ago ;-) Cheers John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336,3113 =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk (Andy Cobley) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 10:46:28 BST Subject: UFO's, Call for a vote ? De-Lurk off. It seems to me that the list members have rather been dancing around the question of UFO's instead of getting to the hub of the question. Any list needs to have both a charter and a philosophy, this list has the former and (I think) not the latter. It boils down to this question: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do the members of THIS list think it a reasonable possiblilty that the Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works has access to and is using technology based on off world knowledge? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the answer is yes then all UFO releted posts may be reasonable. If the answer is no, then only unidentified sighting posts that can be justifiably attributed to skunk work aircraft should be allowed. Do people want a vote on this subject ? I would be willing to organise it and count the votes that come in. There will be a period of discussion follwed by (say ) a week of voting. Now may well be the time to act before it all gets out of hand and the list just disintigrates. It may seem to many that this list is under threat, however as many of the old hands on the net will recognise this is the way of things. I've seen lists come and go, some change to usenet groups, lists renamed as they change subject, its not the disaster people think it is. If the answer to the above question is yes then it may be time for a new list that disagrees with the question (ie No alien technology is available). If the answer to the above question is no, then a new clause should be added to the charter and the rule enforced by group members. So what do you think, Vote or no Vote ? Andy C Microcentre University of Dundee Scotland. Andy Cobley acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk This was sent by Eudora. The address just above is correct even if the return address wasn't ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 12:01:25 +0100 Subject: Re:Call for vote. Hi Skunkworkers, Andy C writes >>If the answer to the above question is yes then it may be time for a new list that disagrees with the question (ie No alien technology is available). If the answer to the above question is no, then a new clause should be added to the charter and the rule enforced by group members. So what do you think, Vote or no Vote ?<< I'm all for a vote, I'm confident which way it will go. Surely, as I've intimated before, a new list for the UFO fans(?) is the answer to all of this. Everybody will then have their own soapbox from which to shout from. It's just that we will not have to be within talking distance. All you lot need is a volunteer to set it up and together you can write your own charter. I, for one, understand our charter. Goodness knows where the line will be drawn with yours. 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: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 00:43:00 -0500 Subject: fishy U-2 story? JS> Message-Id: JS> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 18:24:54 -0500 JS> From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) JS> Subject: Re: overflight by U-2s after Powers flight??? JS> Albert, JS> >"I was Gary Powers Controller the night he went down. This was JS> >from SAC Hq in Omaha. We continued to launch and fly from Turkey JS> >after maybe a week-stand-down. This continued for years. Never JS> >heard of this recall to Edwards, maybe one flew in for Testing JS> >of equipment". JS> In M. Beschloss' book "MAYDAY" and in several other sources, the JS> quote Eisenhower as either signing or promising the USSR that JS> they (US) would never overfly Russian Territory with manned JS> aircraft. That was one of the reasons for the development of the JS> D-21 program. They may have still run down the border of the USSR JS> and they may have been some other accidental intrusions, but nothing JS> on purpose(Please correct me if I'm wrong!) JS> >............ What intrigues me is the comments in quotes that U-2 JS> >flights continued after a week of being idle. JS> >Is this really true??? JS> >......... It just seems very strange that we would continue these JS> >missions knowing that the Soviet Union could shoot down a U-2. It JS> >wasn't easy, but if you've been successful once, chances are you JS> >will have learned enough to get better at it. JS> I've not heard this before.... John, neither have I! I would say that if the U.S. continued to overyfly the USSR after we promised not to, then the Soviet Union would have a field day telling the press and the UN that we broke our promise. This is primarily why I find it hard to believe the person's statements. JS> >I don't remember if I posted this on Skunk Works before, but JS> >Alexander Zuyev was a speaker at an Illinois Aviation conference JS> >last week. JS> I hate to sound like a total idiot.....but who is Alexander Zuyev? Ooops, guess I forgot to mention that he's the former Soviet pilot who defected to Turkey in a MiG-29 some time ago. I have his book and must re-read it. Turkey's treaty with the USSR required them to return the MiG-29 to Russia, but Mr. Zuyev was able to find political asylum(?) in the USA. When I told one of my flying buddies, a recent graduate of Parks College of St. Louis U., he said he knew about the conference but it didn't strike him as something he wanted to go to. JS> Later, JS> John Stone see you in another message sometime! Al ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 05:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? Sorry, such a vote would be off-topic. :> (besides I think we already know the answer). ------------------------------ From: Jay.Waller@analog.com Date: Wednesday, 14 June 1995 8:41am ET Subject: UFO's, Call for a vote ? A vote sounds great to me. Aliens and alien technology: No Unidentified (black) aircraft: Yes This list is my prime source of information on Lockheed's work and on other advanced aircraft. I don't want to risk it falling apart. I don't think speculatuion on unidentified _aircraft_ is out of place, but talk of alien technology and classic UFO's should be put on a seperate list. Well, back to work........... ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:04:09 SET Subject: Re: Details... >> possibly in AI radar and >> imaging, where the terrain is preloaded into the flight computer, and >> where infra-red imaging might be used to get a fix on a downed pilot and >> so forth. I thought they were fairly open about the mission, but there >> must have been some hi-tech searching at some point... Did anyone hear >> anything about the type of craft they used? >They used two Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallions flown by the Marines, >which is about the largest and fastest helicopter in the inventory. >Dean Adams (Sun, 11 Jun 1995 22:10:51 -0700 (PDT)) There was a vicious snippet in "Le Monde" I read yesterday or the day before. They alluded to the possibility that there was no true rescue, but a secret agreement between the Bosnian Serbs (who don't want that the U.S. intervene) and the U.S. (who don't want to intervene). The whole story, according to the author (who is neither a military or a political expert, but rather a kind of free lance humor writer) would have been a fairy tale, with the U.S. helos allowed to intrude into Serbian Bosnia by the Bosnian Serbs themselves... I have no opinion about that, just an (interesting ?) hypothesis... And this is probably off charter... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:43:01 SET Subject: Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Do the members of THIS list think it a reasonable possiblilty that the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works has access to and is using technology based on off world knowledge? >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Andy Cobley (Wed, 14 Jun 95 10:46:28 BST) No, no, no and no. This idea is completely stupid. >Do people want a vote on this subject ? No, no, no and no. The question of *unidentified* flying objects can be related to Skunk Works only by the possible explanation of otherwise unexplained sightings (which do exist IMHO) by "black" aircraft (not only specifically Skunk Works aircraft, I would add). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "Thomas A. Gauldin" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 As I was reading the A&S magazine last night, I was also watching the weather on TV. The article I was reading concerned laminar flow control on wings, and the TV weather was showing particularly nasty winds on Doppler radar. While wingtip vortices are obviously not related to laminar flow, I wondered if Doppler radar could be used to "see" stealth aircraft eventually by detecting anomalous winds that mark their passage. I would think that it would be impossible for any craft- stealth or otherwise- to move through the air without creating vortices that could be detected by Doppler radar. Thomas A. Gauldin Here's to the land of the longleaf pine, Raleigh, NC The summerland where the sun doth shine, BSRB45A on Prodigy Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, FAX (919) 676-1404 Here's to Downhome, the Old North State. ------------------------------ From: anonymous NFS user 14-Jun-1995 1027 <"bword::nobody"@xanadu.enet.dec.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 10:26:14 EDT Subject: Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 This is a receipt notification for a message you submitted previously. The message <9506140229.AA09581@bword.zko.dec.com> was delivered to . The message was read and acknowledged by the recipient at Wed Jun 14 10:27:47 1995 Supplementary information: Subj: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301. ------------------------------ From: anonymous NFS user 14-Jun-1995 1027 <"bword::nobody"@xanadu.enet.dec.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 10:26:24 EDT Subject: Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #302 This is a receipt notification for a message you submitted previously. The message <9506140808.AA09616@bword.zko.dec.com> was delivered to . The message was read and acknowledged by the recipient at Wed Jun 14 10:27:53 1995 Supplementary information: Subj: Skunk Works Digest V5 #302. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 16:32:24 SET Subject: Re: NATO Code Names > [...] BTW - I just got an English language >copy of the French book on the history of the MiG design OKB that >head of the bureau (Belyakov) wrote - it is amazing. [...] >David Lednicer (Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:07:01 -0700 (PDT)) The French book is "MiG 1939-1989", by Rotislav Apollossovich Belyakov and Jacques Marmain, Editions Lariviere, Paris, 1991. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Illya Kuryakin) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 11:11:58 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? +A vote sounds great to me. + +Aliens and alien technology: No +Unidentified (black) aircraft: Yes + +This list is my prime source of information on Lockheed's work and on other +advanced aircraft. I don't want to risk it falling apart. +I don't think speculatuion on unidentified _aircraft_ is +out of place, but talk of alien technology and classic UFO's should be put on +a seperate list. + +Well, back to work........... I agree. Illya ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Illya Kuryakin) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 11:18:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 I think the problem is that Doppler radar doesn't have the resolution yet. Weather dopplers have about a 7-15 meter resolution. You'd have to get it down to 2-3 feet for that to be effective. Not to say it can't be done... :) Illya +As I was reading the A&S magazine last night, I was also watching the +weather on TV. The article I was reading concerned laminar flow control +on wings, and the TV weather was showing particularly nasty winds on +Doppler radar. + +While wingtip vortices are obviously not related to laminar flow, I +wondered if Doppler radar could be used to "see" stealth aircraft +eventually by detecting anomalous winds that mark their passage. I would +think that it would be impossible for any craft- stealth or otherwise- to +move through the air without creating vortices that could be detected by +Doppler radar. + +Thomas A. Gauldin Here's to the land of the longleaf pine, +Raleigh, NC The summerland where the sun doth shine, +BSRB45A on Prodigy Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, +FAX (919) 676-1404 Here's to Downhome, the Old North State. ------------------------------ From: BROWN A <92913938@mmu.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:06:03 GMT Subject: The "UFO filter". Hi Skunkers, The suggested UFO filter would work fine for me, as I only post what some of you refer to as "UFO-type material" when it is a result of terrestrial research. I know some of you would like to restrict the subjects covered to just those aircraft which can deffinitely be attributed to the Skunk works, but as a long-standing aviation buff, and someone who has a reasonable knowledge of both scientific research and military inteligence techniques, I think it is important NOT to exclude postings covering new and/or interesting concepts. Just because some idea is, to most people "Far out", does not mean it is cranky or wrong, just new. As a scientific historian, I know how long it takes for new and revolutionary concepts to be accepted by the mainstream. Since subscribing to the list, originally to find information about the "Aurora" for a project I was involved in, I have come across many interesing postings concerning new technology which do not fit the original charter of the group. Despite not fitting the charter, I have found them EXTREMELY useful in expanding my own personal knowledge, as well as being something which I could pass on to the next generation of up and coming aviation enthusiasts (something they appreciate greatly.) Times are changing, and so I think should the attitudes of people involved with this group. The Skunk works is no longer the ONLY place where advanced research into flight (Both terrestrial and space) is taking place. This group should be prepared to acknowledge that fact, and be more tolerant of off-subject postings as long as they are related to terrestrial research projects into aerospace development, no matter how far from practical realisation that work is. Let's face it, the reason everyones here on the list is because they are intensly interested in new developments in aviation, no matter what the source. BTW, never in any of my own postings did I mention UFOs, but I still got flamed for posting what I did, even though it was related to terrestrial scientific research, and posted after spotting a similarity between it and a previous posting related to advanced propulsion concepts ( a posting which never got critisised for UFO references). While I agree that the more extreme UFO "cranks" (your words not mine, as I have seen several genuine UFOs myself) should be kept out of these pages, I don't think we should exclude every new idea, as this is bad scientific practice. Every reasonable idea should be given its chance, as it may eventually turn out to be right and/or have some future relevance to genuine Skunk works projects. To quote Richard Feynman, "No scientist is ever RIGHT, they just can't be proved wrong at the time." Sorry to prolong the debate, but as someone who's often seen as a "crank" by others, I've got to try to get you all to understand that we mean well, and sometimes turn out to be right (or at least fairly close to the mark). Adrian Brown (92913938@mmu.ac.uk) Dept of Maths & Physics, Manchester Metropolitan University. "How can I belive in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen. ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:08:27 Subject: Re: UFO's, Call for a vote ? Andy said: >It seems to me that the list members have rather been dancing around the >question of UFO's instead of getting to the hub of the question. Any list needs >to have both a charter and a philosophy, this list has the former and (I >think) not the latter. It boils down to this question: > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Do the members of THIS list think it a reasonable possiblilty that the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works has >access to and is using technology based on off world knowledge? >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A very kind offer Andy, but really what's the point ? We're all going to vote no - and then what ? We seem to have more traffic on this UFO non-event than we do on UFOs or more importantly SW product...speaking of which... The secrecy surrounding many of the SW programmes must be a huge financial burden-I was interested to see an official remarking in this week's AW&ST on the Tier 3- that they didn't know if the budget could be met if high levels of security had to maintained. Makes you wonder how much security actually costs the SW... ------------------------------ From: jackg@holobyte.com (Jack Gibbons) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:32:14 -0700 Subject: Re: A suggested UFO "filter" This sounds like a reasonable idea as long as when you say terrestrial you mean that the technology was developed completely independent of aliens, psychics, inner worlders, out worlders, psychic lobsters or any other fringe belief. I am always wary of the acronym UFO because of all the, ahem, people that come out of the woodwork. Along these lines, I think it falls within the charter to discuss as yet unidentified aircraft if they may relate to skunky projects. Lumber >:-[ - "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." - "God is dead." -Nietzche Here thar be monsters! - "Nietzche is dead." -God "Hey ho! Let's go!" ******************************************************************** * E-mail: lumber@zoom.com | lumber@dnai.com | jackg@holobyte.com * ******************************************************************** ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: A suggested UFO "filter" Author: ConsLaw@aol.com at Internet Date: 06/13/95 21:23 Here's a suggested rule of thumb for UFO-related posting which I think would satisfy 95% of the active contributors of this group: A posting regarding UFOs will be within the charter of the board IF AND ONLY IF included in the posting is a hypothesis relating the sighting report to terrestrial technologies. (In this way the hypothesis can generate constructive scientific discussion.) The original poster may only suggest an extraterrestrial source AFTER the sighting has drawn comments from other posters. If this rule seems overly technical, remember that the "U-word" has been a problem for quite some time and shows no sign of going away, partly because as multiple contributors have pointed out - black technologies are not publicly disclosed and are therefore unidentified. ------------------------------ From: jackg@holobyte.com (Jack Gibbons) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:32:14 -0700 Subject: Re: A suggested UFO "filter" This sounds like a reasonable idea as long as when you say terrestrial you mean that the technology was developed completely independent of aliens, psychics, inner worlders, out worlders, psychic lobsters or any other fringe belief. I am always wary of the acronym UFO because of all the, ahem, people that come out of the woodwork. Along these lines, I think it falls within the charter to discuss as yet unidentified aircraft if they may relate to skunky projects. Lumber >:-[ - "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." - "God is dead." -Nietzche Here thar be monsters! - "Nietzche is dead." -God "Hey ho! Let's go!" ******************************************************************** * E-mail: lumber@zoom.com | lumber@dnai.com | jackg@holobyte.com * ******************************************************************** ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: A suggested UFO "filter" Author: ConsLaw@aol.com at Internet Date: 06/13/95 21:23 Here's a suggested rule of thumb for UFO-related posting which I think would satisfy 95% of the active contributors of this group: A posting regarding UFOs will be within the charter of the board IF AND ONLY IF included in the posting is a hypothesis relating the sighting report to terrestrial technologies. (In this way the hypothesis can generate constructive scientific discussion.) The original poster may only suggest an extraterrestrial source AFTER the sighting has drawn comments from other posters. If this rule seems overly technical, remember that the "U-word" has been a problem for quite some time and shows no sign of going away, partly because as multiple contributors have pointed out - black technologies are not publicly disclosed and are therefore unidentified. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #303 ********************************* 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).