skunk-works-digest Tuesday, April 14 1998 Volume 07 : Number 024 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield F-117 crash Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) Listowner needs a little help... LoFLYTE All Stars Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:40:45 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 This from a most informative post from Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl - thanks, too, for the other posts on this subject. >The cover story, that the crash recovery team cleaned the site up, and then scattered the remains of a derelict McDonnell Douglas F-101B Voodoo from Nellis (or Tonopah, or Groom Lake), at that site instead, to confuse anyone who might have ventures there, is obviously not true. Several fragments that were recovered by Peter Merlin from the crash site are definitively from an F-117A, and no F-101 parts could be located. I don't know exactly how and from where, but one should be able to get the crash investigation report via a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request from the USAF. Real conspiracy buffs would argue the F-117A remains were scattered there for deception, to hide what secret vehicle had really crashed there, but I wouldn't go so far... :) - -- Andreas The following is an excerpt from what I believe to have been the only eyewitness reports to the crash, taken from the "Bakersfield Californian" of July 29, 1986. "Air Force holds camper's photos of mystery plane "Andy Hoyt admits that he has no proof - not anymore, at least - that he witnessed the crash of what many believe is the Pentagon's most carefully guarded secret aircraft. "The unemployed Redondo Beach carpenter says the Air Force has the photographs he hastily snapped two weeks ago as the plane plummeted to the ground in Sequoia National Forest near Bakersfield. "And the Air Force isn't talking. SNIP> "In a scenario that sounds like a science-fiction movie, Hoyt says he and two relatives saw something drop out of the sky and explode into flames on the other side of a hill about a half-mile away. "It seemed like something other than an airplane," said Hoyt, 26, who was on a camping trip, "Believe it or not, I thought it was a UFO." SNIP> "All I saw were three red lights and a dark image behind them like an upside-down triangle," Hoyt said, adding that each light was at a point of the triangle. "He said he pulled a camera from the dashboard of the truck and managed to take two or three pictures before the plane disappeared over the hill. "An ensuing pair of explosions "lit up the sky like it was daylight out," he said. SNIP> "Contrary to published reports on the day of the accident, Hoyt says, the aircraft did not explode before it crashed. SNIP> ******** Several points are raised by the foregoing, and the previous posts. a) Hoyt's account makes no mention of any jet-noise ("drop out of the sky"), which should have been a key component of his report. Even for an F-117A. b) The site was secured for virtually a month - during which period explosive charges were detonated on site. And Peter Merlin was then able to move in and find pieces of an F-117A (whose existence was confirmed shortly thereafter anyway) - how very convenient! No offence to Peter Merlin and the other crash-site experts. Yet the constituency of the composition of the construction materiel for these covert projects (that Peter Merlin was able to retrieve) is so secret that the Air Force has successfully sued in Federal Court (9th US Circuit Court of Appeals - January 26, 1998) to block any attempts by workers to pursue claims for toxic contamination. And after occupying the site for a month, the Air Force missed some of the debris? Just a few thoughts. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:52:08 EDT From: Xelex Subject: Re: Bakersfield F-117 crash The F-117A that crashed near Bakersfield, California on 11 July 1986 was indeed 81-10792. It was the eighth production model F-117, and was delivered to the Groom Lake test site on 6 November 1982. Its first egine run took place six days later, and initial taxi tests were conducted on 7 December. Lockheed test pilot Skip Holm took 792 up for its first flight on 9 December 1982. He made a second flight the following day. Contractor testing of 792 was completed by Tom Morganfeld on 14 December. Tom Abel made two flights in 792 to complete the Air Force acceptance tests. The second of these, on 17 December, included verification of the aircraft's low observables. The Air Force accepted 792 on 22 December 1982. The aircraft then joined the operational units at Tonopah Test Range for OT&E. At 0113 hours on 11 July 1986, Maj. Ross E. Mulhare of the 4450th Test Squadron took off on a one-ship training mission. His flight, using the call sign ARIEL 31, was the last on the predawn flight schedule. Mulhare's aircraft was not operating in low observable "stealth mode." His navigation lights were switched on, and radar relectors allowed air traffic controllers to track the aircraft as it flew from Tonopah, Nevada to Bakersfield, California. All went well until Mulhare turned east over Bakersfield. At 0145 hours, Mulhare began to pass over the Kern River gorge in the Tehachapi Mountains. Without any visual cues, and physically very tired, Mulhare apparently became disoriented. The aircraft entered into a steep dive and impacted in rugged terrain. The pilot was killed, and the aircraft completely destroyed. Mulhare may not have realized that he was in a dive. The aircraft is thought to have exceeded Mach 1. The airdata system on the F-117 does not function properly above Mach 1. If the aircraft exceeded that speed, attitude and airspeed data would have been degraded, making recovery almost impossible. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:51:39 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 - --=====================_892464699==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Great response from Peter Merlin. The richness of detail is much appreciated. Could I ask what was the source of all this information, and has it been verified by non-AF Witnesses? Another question - when was the existence of the F-117A officially acknowledged? Lastly, I am still having a problem squaring these accounts with those of the eyewitness and his family. They did, after all, actually see the craft, so their evidence has to be given a significant weighting. Peter Merlin says the navigation lights were turned on. I am no expert, but the eyewitness said there was a red light on each corner of the triangle - aren't navigation lights red, green and white? A further point of discrepancy is that the witness stated that the craft looked like an "upside-down triangle". Now to me, an F-117, no matter how you cut the cake, looks like a triangle, not an upside-down triangle - unless it was flying backwards! An upside-down triangle with red lights at each apex by geometric definition looks more like the attached .jpg picture. So are we sure we can trust the after-the-event Air Force and other information about the crash, given that it does seem to be at variance with the eyewitness account? Perhaps in reality a different model of craft crashed, whose existence has still not been publicly revealed? Tony Craddock - --=====================_892464699==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="BelgiumUFOProcessedk2.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BelgiumUFOProcessedk2.jpg" /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD/7QomUGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+0AAAAAABAASAAAAAEA AQBIAAAAAQABOEJJTQPzAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAAAAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgAB AAAAAAAAAAI4QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEAL2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEA MgAAAAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklNA/gAAAAAAHAAAP////////// //////////////////8D6AAAAAD/////////////////////////////A+gAAAAA//////////// /////////////////wPoAAAAAP////////////////////////////8D6AAAOEJJTQQIAAAAAAAQ AAAAAQAAAkAAAAJAAAAAADhCSU0ECQAAAAAItgAAAAEAAACAAAAAeAAAAYAAALQAAAAImgAYAAH/ 2P/gABBKRklGAAECAQBIAEgAAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0 LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGSAAAAAAf/bAIQADAgICAkIDAkJDBELCgsRFQ8MDA8VGBMTFRMTGBEMDAwM DAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAENCwsNDg0QDg4QFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwM DAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAeACAAwEiAAIRAQMR Af/dAAQACP/EAT8AAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAMAAQIEBQYHCAkKCwEAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAABBAEDAgQCBQcGCAUDDDMBAAIRAwQhEjEFQVFhEyJxgTIGFJGhsUIjJBVS wWIzNHKC0UMHJZJT8OHxY3M1FqKygyZEk1RkRcKjdDYX0lXiZfKzhMPTdePzRieUpIW0lcTU5PSl tcXV5fVWZnaGlqa2xtbm9jdHV2d3h5ent8fX5/cRAAICAQIEBAMEBQYHBwYFNQEAAhEDITESBEFR YXEiEwUygZEUobFCI8FS0fAzJGLhcoKSQ1MVY3M08SUGFqKygwcmNcLSRJNUoxdkRVU2dGXi8rOE w9N14/NGlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpamtsbW5vYnN0dXZ3eHl6e3x//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A 8z3KbHPTKbFYUuXPU2uTNU2tYpGOSdis1N/tKqwq/iN3fmp8WCckjanPdBarVfTrrWuLa3Oa36Xz Xa/VX6q4V2I3My2tt9X6A8IXU1dJw6Mc0UMaxr27Se+qGTNjj6dSQsx48p9Q9Mf+dJ8VyMXZqfaq VtLi2F2P1w+r37P2mt2j+FxVoezT91GUY8MZRld/KuwTkfTKNV80UFii5yIdqGVFJtRWS/qpKKYl i9JJJBe//9DzNiIxMiMYra1dqnW1M1vuRQ1qfFjkkrb71p4RraW7vpLOY5rXqzVbtG5HiYZx4uJ9 Y+pt4d01rC5p2cN7hdESF4z0vq+RjbSyzaukH11yhRtnc797RDNycpy44yjr/g8KzFzRxx4JQka+ WUWx9fMqt7msb7tn9y81yQw2uW31PqrsqxznO3blh5DAXbmqYxjHHGI6BGG+I5DH5zxNbdtcmG1O 6pOxV5N1G4plJzVAVJsopUovRNii5qYl/9HzgNTta5QaVYrar0YscgsxqnLko9qefYnyixcTJrtq NXYg+1S+i1MQya8tRDe9zfpKpJSaSpOKX7y6WOP7qcBzvpJOCiHO3Ioq9Svc1PEZSQBGLWsCiGIx qe1NUxvqNbZ7WqOWNdHIwFbnN9T81qi4ArosbBxMqj7Jj2epfZZ9Juo21Md7n/uLPv6XlMfY01uc 2v6W3/P/AO/pZMPD4scOYiZcMtP7zkuaoub+8rj8dzfcgWN2uUEmeMn/0vOKwjUoQclS5X8cmIlu ut3V7f3UzdFDj+Uotd+8pMkuJhEeFKxqld/NKId+8o3OdtUTJFH+apD6SG5SZvT4/Mulu2qGepq5 auJ059g9rVS6c3e/X/Xhen/VHo+N9hbkvbve7jd25Voyhhxe7KN+rhjFpZROeWOOHT9J89yumPrb D27Xfylkmp7TLvpL1f6414jKGS1u9v5NF5ncG2ZYn+bc74aSgZRzYYz4eC5LcZnjyzhKXHwfpRe0 /wAXvRW2UW5llbdtnsY7Wdfprrbvq9h20WY+xobfLXFo11+n/wBSq31Yuoo6bRQwMaPdtDHTJC3+ /Czc2TJHJKNkV/3DYwwx5Y8ctZH5v6v9V4jr31DxjQDgS1/cFeX5dD6bXVu9rmu2u+S936/1Ovpv T7bXfzhbtqb4uK8S6oSMqwWctd7kscpSj8q/hiMojE/4P7r/AP/T832qbVDcpl6uMcmbURv+chtR mtT1kmQaoXNR2f1VC5rnJR+ZagdtUq07mqLW7U/hX03MO8Vv1XXdH+s2Tg4/p1mWn97suJqLQ7VW PtTgdod7VZhOPBwzjxx/dauTDImMhL/Ci73V+tWXlxe+XOWC+xr3blB13q8ITrAHKPLl4uGMY1X6 K7Dy5gfN7D6odYxMK7da6x1n0fd9ET/nLsMv67YmJ23u/NbuXkNV7mlu32qy/LO33Oc537yr5Pbl 80bkmOKcTIQnv6np+sfWZmXZ9ote43s/mqvzW/uLjsu7eXFztznfS/tJX5W4/SQbbXEJkpfL6apk xYqlKXFZL//U832qTVHcpblcWpK0VqhW5Hpbuc1PixFKxrkUslqnU2QtfpXSH9QtbRVtaXNc73ca J+PH+lLYNfLlp58s8VEMBXVZP1TzqfbZWSsrL6c6jlv0VYlD08UaP91ZDmgJVLQ/1nHLdqYucj21 ua5AKrybkUcpQncoqLiXs1Fzk0PQ3B+5NRwsi5MVEp3OTJSTEv8A/9XzhMxOpNVpazaFZxztVVqM x21SRYZQdbAFRdquw+qLMX7WXOO3837wuJxLWA+5dJ9V81lTrJ/O2+7bPb+0p4S4oyj3i088OHhO 9H5X1XYwDadVjdW+ruBk0veG7XRO5vkqeJ1i91f6P3furL6x9Y+qOpfS1rWz7T4qvi5bPGfplVfN /wCipnzeGYqWM8X6P9SX954LqzW03WVt/NWWeVoZhc693qN2uVIs2lS5ZeqTPhPoCMJgnc5Q3KCT aivuUdyik5BSnOSS+kov2pqX/9bzX3IrG/urPSVta6LQiALKSTorZcLss+krePk5FDt2PY6t38ly 5tJSR4mGft/pPaV9d6g1v6R/qt/lID+p5Nn5zq935rVySSf6+Frx9ni6u9ba530nbnfykEjcsdJQ SbePhdN25R2vWckmMsXS2uUXblnpJiW9sdvS2PVFJBe//9k4QklNBAYAAAAAAAf//wABAAEBAP/+ ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGSAAAAAAf/b AIQAEg4ODhAOFRAQFR4TERMeIxoVFRojIhcXFxcXIhEMDAwMDAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAEUExMWGRYbFxcbFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwMDAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAeACAAwEiAAIRAQMRAf/dAAQACP/EAIQAAAEFAQEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAIAAQMEBgUHAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAwEABBAAAgIBAwMCBQMFAQAAAAAAAAER AgMhEgQxQQVRMmFxgSITkVIGsUKSssIVEQADAAEDAgUDBQAAAAAAAAAAAQIRIRIDMTJRIkJickFS ooKSsvIT/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDFyOmxDowoFLCTGQSSCxElSei+pBUt4VPYnTEiStLWcQTLh3sm 1VtLr9TS+H8Rx74FnzJX3+1ekHapxMGPE8eOqqrKG++oJm3qvLP5HVcrTV4PNsuF166FW9Gkafzn jVx4dXpboZfJKceguOm9GsY7pOaWE0/iRWBbDcAMsgMYXyEMaYMxCEaYf//QxiCQwSQSo6DqgUtS RJBYkHRal3juqanqU6tJktLxqTpZybk3/hcitxFWU9vRd0dPQwHC598URaDs/wDvXWOJl+oI5nC2 uaf21J18Lp7k5/iSfyHLVxVa7TFZo3M6vM5zy2bbmTlZUm5R3HnLprve4bSUpLwK8wxtB3USPQSY LGCaB2mmNDDMKBmjQn//0cckEkwUS1QGXSEkPqFGguwMiaEnAdbAaD9EcEJZGg/zWa6leR0znK8B 5fiSy31GYymSVY91ZRmiEk2VrIHaTujQNarclbRCVAcgbG1u7IFo7mLjYM2P8OK27Ja3Varbjrb7 r/sKObhZq2strar1j/P/ALBPKm8PT5HVGDntAtepYtja1IrKGVTJs//Sx9SWhEmFRk2eiWWrXmse hGNP1GT9QJYFTyEkK/tFPqDduBIAPYJdQGFWTWJdSxjpuZ08HDdl0KnBrN9Ta+J4mL8CytbrPpPY 817qtRP7i+ZiN7Xq2zJls3BdVqofxOVfG1bXqb7y9cSx1lLcv6GLy7bcjX2t/LQyHU3Ut79nqkxt XCrGzzGg/jHBTx3z3qot9tXrOvvO/k8fgvjtj2pLJKbS119/+hF4y2PHxceOqqlrCq5lo6P0K8cx a3Pu9XtPJdUqay/6Gb8j/G8Lxp8aVbumYnPjdLur0acP6Hp/keVXi8W9372oovWzPNeYmstlbqnq PCV4T/T9p0ttdD//08dASBkKQMsEg1+oCJEgsQ8DWQa+Q1k2YcupG4HqO0MlBosFvjZdljR8LymT Di21ej9exlKOHqTvPbonoQvjbaaePdJaaW3FLfP2nZ53kLZJdrS2cS91a0g2yuxE7ai4+LaC7zhJ Y9ppPB87BgvN3Z26a+1Sd/P53Bh7bn2Unn1MlqtRoSWz27tt+pqik3trHqJVtfVeY73N8tXPb8t7 N5K+yn9tf2GbzX3Wbblvr9RXyN9yK1mOIw28hb6aYwf/1MdA6GkeQlg6kiAqyWiloDEgqpkqpKCx 1k6fC4NuTdY6Qm03r00JXeBTP1ZyHRAbTR5PC56aWozncnhWx9ugJ5lnD/Iq50ysP4nLagFtkt6t MiZ6ESYEiExhAyEM2NqC5k7Bg7YLExmzUFs//9XHCQh0EqGibG4IESVcAaEjo8bY3qaTwqw/lluO 36mUw3Xc73huRWm6e8axJ5uWcYfXXtKy8pr2m0hRBR5fj+Pmx2cQ4mV8CPDzL2r9uvoUud5Llfjt SqSnR+p1c/HSw4e70+yiUcXIq0fyMjz0qZLVXYoMucpt5HuUMqNQW4+1Dt6sAEJsCSyJseRpGEzj BmxC6jODTD//1sbqEl6FYQSpaQaKQjHgSOhV6ljFnyY3OOzq/gzjiJ1t+olk0lPJ8lL7rb18SK/N y27us9kcARJf55F5sHTvdvq5fxInqURF5wTZbcgwysIaCWYYzkriNMJ4cihkAjTD/9k= - --=====================_892464699==_-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 14:50:36 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 I wrote: >>... I have the thick crash report at home. >> But I've >>read the crash report. Andreas responded: > I don't know exactly how and >from where, but one should be able to get the crash investigation report via >a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request from the USAF. Gee, what gave you a hint? The following is not an exact repro. of the crash report cover page: AFR 110-14 USAF Accident Investigation Board 11 July 1986 Tonopah Test Range F-117A - 81-0792 4450 TG Investigation Officer Lt. Col. Marc R. Marchesseault HQ TAC/ Langley AFB, Virginia Tony responds: >... >The following is an excerpt from what I believe to have been the only >eyewitness reports to the crash, taken from the "Bakersfield Californian" >of July 29, 1986. > > >"Air Force holds camper's photos of mystery plane > >"Andy Hoyt admits that he has no proof - not anymore, at least - that he >witnessed the crash of what many believe is the Pentagon's most carefully >guarded secret aircraft. >... >"In a scenario that sounds like a science-fiction movie, Hoyt says he and >two relatives saw something drop out of the sky and explode into flames on >the other side of a hill about a half-mile away. > >"It seemed like something other than an airplane," said Hoyt, 26, who was >on a camping trip, "Believe it or not, I thought it was a UFO." And he was exactly correct! At that time it was in fact a UFO, An Unidentified Flying Object. And it remained unidentified for years afterward. Andy Hoyt (one of the witnesses) was quoted: >"All I saw were three red lights and a dark image behind them like an >upside-down triangle," Hoyt said, adding that each light was at a point of >the triangle. Tony later commented about Pete's explanation: >Lastly, I am still having a problem squaring these accounts with those of >the eyewitness and his family. They did, after all, actually see the >craft, so their evidence has to be given a significant weighting. >... > I am no expert, >but the eyewitness said there was a red light on each corner of the >triangle - aren't navigation lights red, green and white? Well let me help you here. I have seen an F-117A fly right over my head in the middle of the night at very low altitude. I saw this back in the fall of 1991 at Tonopah Test Range when the F-117A's were still based there. They indeed have a triangular lighting pattern of three lights of the same color. However, I can't recall the color. It was definitely a triangular lighting pattern. It looked rather cool in fact. Directional lights on civilian aircraft (I call them directional lights because you can tell the direction of flight of the aircraft from their position) are red and green. Red on the left wingtip and green on the right. The F-117A I saw did NOT have the red and green directional lights of a civilian aircraft turned on. >A further point of discrepancy is that the witness stated that the craft >looked like an "upside-down triangle". Now to me, an F-117, no matter how >you cut the cake, looks like a triangle, not an upside-down triangle - >unless it was flying backwards! The F-117A is a rather unusual looking aircraft, to say nothing of the fact that at that time, no one outside those with the access, had ever seen one before. Add the fact that it was seen late at night so the image was devoid of all detail. >An upside-down triangle with red lights at each apex by geometric >definition looks more like the attached .jpg picture. Or, it could look like the F-117A I saw buzz me at TTR in 1991 which is not this image you present (in fact this image is of the Belgium UFO). Maybe I can settle that here now too! An F-117A at night does NOT look like the Belgium UFO! The lights on the F-117A that I saw were small points of light, like traditional aircraft lights. Not massive blobs of light like on your Belgium UFO photo. And an F-117A that buzzes you puts out obvious jet noise. More on that later. >Another question - when was the existence of the F-117A officially >acknowledged? After the Bakersfield crash in July 1986, the USAF confirmed that it was the crash of a classified aircraft. So that proved that there was indeed 'something' in existence. It wasn't until years later however on 4/4/90 that Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams announced the F-117A at a Pentagon press conference. Tony wrote: >a) Hoyt's account makes no mention of any jet-noise ("drop out of the >sky"), which should have been a key component of his report. Even for an >F-117A. Perhaps not, if the F-117A was in fact supersonic! Tony wrote: >b) The site was secured for virtually a month - during which period >explosive charges were detonated on site. And Peter Merlin was then able >to move in and find pieces of an F-117A (whose existence was confirmed >shortly thereafter anyway) - how very convenient! You may not believe it, but in fact, many people picked up pieces. There was at least one journalist in fact who went out, picked up pieces, and then wrote about them with pictures and all. I think he was from the San Jose, Sacramento, or San Francisco area. I have a copy of it somehwere. Perhaps others saw it. I would expect there are still pieces out there. >And after occupying the site for a month, the Air Force missed some of the >debris? Yes, in fact quite a bit. Given the input of Pete and others who have been there. This is not unusual for remote military aircraft crash sites. >Just a few thoughts. And a few more thoughts. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:09:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 The whole theory that the crash at Bakersfield was not a Lockheed F-117 is so far-fetched, that it is not even funny anymore. I probably shouldn't do this, but I made the error of answering to this thread before -- even though I kinda knew where this would end up -- so I guess I have to follow through with it. Some quotes from Tony Craddock's posts, and what I think about them: >a) Hoyt's account makes no mention of any jet-noise ("drop out of the sky"), >which should have been a key component of his report. Even for an F-117A. If you have ever seen a fast jet approaching low on the deck, even below Mach 1, than you will have noticed that you can't hear it until it is right over you, or actually already gone. Assuming that the F-117 was diving very fast, approaching or exceeding Mach 1, you would not hear anything until after the aircraft had crashed, when the sound of the explosion (and/or the sonic boom) would be much louder and much more memorable than any jet engine noise. And just because there was no direct mention of engine noise in this particular article, that does not mean that the witness didn't hear any noise, it doesn't even mean that he didn't mention any noise, it just means that the reporter didn't write anything about engine noise. >Yet the constituency of the composition of the construction materiel for >these covert projects (that Peter Merlin was able to retrieve) is so secret >that the Air Force has successfully sued in Federal Court (9th US Circuit Court of Appeals - January 26, 1998) to block any attempts by workers to >pursue claims for toxic contamination. >And after occupying the site for a month, the Air Force missed some of the >debris? Pieces of crashed aircraft can virtually always be found, no matter how thoroughly the crash investigation/retrieval team cleans up afterwards. The composition of some materials might be secret, but nevertheless, you can still find pieces of it at practically all F-117 crash sites. And some of that supposedly super secret stuff got even sold to scrap dealers. >b) The site was secured for virtually a month - during which period >explosive charges were detonated on site. And Peter Merlin was then able >to move in and find pieces of an F-117A (whose existence was confirmed >shortly thereafter anyway) - how very convenient! >Another question - when was the existence of the F-117A officially >acknowledged? The F-117 was publicly acknowledged, with a very poor quality photograph on November 10, 1988, and the first public unveiling of the aircraft itself was not before April 21, 1990 -- even though a couple of photos had emerged before that time. It is beyond any comprehension to me that the Air Force would have tried to 'mask' the crash of 'whatever' by faking the crash of a top secret aircraft, whose mere existence wasn't acknowledged for more than another 2 years, and even after that it took several more years, before the secrecy was lifted enough so that the general public could get a glimpse of the program. >A further point of discrepancy is that the witness stated that the craft >looked like an "upside-down triangle". Now to me, an F-117, no matter how >you cut the cake, looks like a triangle, not an upside-down triangle - >unless it was flying backwards! An "upside-down triangle", in my understanding, looks exactly like an F-117 diving into the ground -- the pointy end facing down. Based on Tony's three posts regarding this topic, I have to assume that he did not talk with any eye witness directly, and bases the whole accusation of UFO involvement on a newspaper clipping -- that by itself is joke! Even if one assumes that a) the journalist reported correctly and objectively what the witness said, and b) the witness reported correctly and objectively what he believed to have seen, there is still the fact that c) even eye witness reports of an aircraft crash during an air show often totally contradict each other or are just plain incorrect or at least not exact. I have (sadly, I must say) witnessed several aircraft crashes, and even though hundreds or thousands of people watched -- during the daylight and not at 2 a.m. in the night -- and the aircraft was well known and obviously a conventional aircraft, and not a black, triangular-shaped, secret vehicle, the likes of which had never been seen before by 'normal' people, I must say the eye witness report by Andy Hoyt was much more accurate than many things I have heard from people at the scene, right after the incident, or saw on tv just hours later reported by professional journalists. And in some cases, footage was available that one could see over and over again, and still, many people saw things quite different than how they had really happened. What I am trying to say is, that the report confirms in my opinion perfectly the F-117 crash scenario, without any doubt, whatsoever. Case closed. But then there are always those people who look at the alleged Lazar video of a UFO and go "ohh" and "ahh" over a little white dot zipping around on a black screen, which looks to me like the camera was moved around, while the light was stationary. If you want to believe, by all means, do it, but call it what it is, a religion, and this is not the place for religious debates, so I will stop babbling now. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:10:13 +0000 From: David Linthwaite Subject: Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) CL-400 Suntan ? What ? Why ? When ? - -- David Linthwaite ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:50:37 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Listowner needs a little help... Hello: I seem to have misplaced the V7. #22 digest here so I cannot place it in the archives. :( Can someone PLEASE send a copy OFF-LIST to me ASAP. #23 is out there also. George georgek@netwrx1.com ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 98 16:12:21 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: LoFLYTE All Stars The remainder of the article (7,072 bytes) is available upon request. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Two close encounters with a triangular flying object have focused attention on LoFLYTE reconnaissance planes ... On 7 June 1996, at about 6 pm, an Aer Lingus jet had a very close encounter some 9,000ft (2,750m) above Stevenage, about 30 miles (48km) north of London. The aircraft was en route from Dublin to London's Stansted airport, when the pilots were forced to take evasive action after spotting an unidentified object hurtling towards them. The object flashed past the right-hand side of the jet seconds later, only some 200-300 yards (180-275m) away and 100ft (30m) below. ...< %>< >... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:15:52 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Thanks for another couple of informative posts, though it does appear that we are all getting marooned in speculation-land. And I do tend to shudder when an authority-figure says "Case closed" when there is clear ambiguity. Don't shoot me, I'm only reading the newspaper. The witness said it looked like a UFO, though on a purely semantical note it was clearly a UCO (Unidentified Crashing Object). I agree the inverted triangle call could go either way. Peter Merlin said it had its navigation lights on - these would by definition have been red, green and white. The witness said it had three red lights. Larry Smith said he has seen one with the lights at the apices all the same color. What are these for? I hardly think their function (on a stealth plane) is decoration. In my mind there is still the problem of Inspector Clouseau and his cleanup team, who spent a month on site detonating large explosions and cleaning up the mess, only to have Peter Merlin, journalists, and the curious hordes swoop in and find all this identifiable classified debris. Debris from one of the blackest aircraft in the Air Force inventory at the time whose composition, as I write 12 years later, is subject to a Court ordered cone of silence so intense that the defending Attorney's office was sealed on National Security grounds. Surely Peter Merlin should replace Inspector Clouseau? Then we can be sure the Nation's secrets will be adequately protected by someone who clearly belongs on the "A"-team. And Witnesses won't have to be threatened with death, as was reported by one investigator. And what is all this nonsense about Bob Lazar and lights in the sky? Where did that come from? Who needs him when there is far better video in the public domain anyway. Like that shown to Congress and on many TV shows featuring a clearly structured intruder on the Nellis range in 1994 performing incredible manoeuvres with the Air Force's own tracking telemetry superimposed over the video. Plus the stunned comments ("what the hell is that?") from the radar operators at S-13 and S-30 (see http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/essays/nellis.htm or http://area51.simplenet.com/s30/)? And what was the segue into religion all about? Isn't that several classifications higher than a mere Internet chat group, and off-topic? However, thanks for all the information, which has certainly helped shed light on the incident. Meanwhile, back at the Skunkworks, if I had a really super-secret plane that crashed, what would be the best way to cover it up? Tony Craddock BTW if anyone wants a copy of the Nellis range video, let me know privately. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #24 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner