From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #58 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, September 4 1998 Volume 07 : Number 058 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Aurora Re: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar Seven square miles surrounded by reality. [none] Re: Re: B-3 Vindicator RE: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar Re: B-3 Vindicator Re: B-3 Vindicator RE: Reason to keep the SR down Ballon rules! Re: Ballon rules! Re: Ballon rules! Re: Ballon rules! F/A-18E/F Role Secure In Future Carrier Wings Re: Ballon rules! Re: Aurora. also a way to vote. (read on.) vote. Janes Article Janes RE: vote. RE: Janes - Black world aircraft Ritter Korean Satellite [none] Re: Korean Satellite RE: Korean Satellite *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:44:31 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Aurora Ryan wrote: "In no way am I claiming that a massive government conspiracy exists and that all our government leaders are lying at us." Why not? It's probably true... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:44:32 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar betnal@ns.net wrote: > Remember, one of the best definitions of Washington is, "7 square miles > surrounded by reality". Washington wants to build the F/A-18E/F even though they > know better, after all. I agree there are many, many talented and dedicated > people involved in the process. One of them just resigned and returned from > Iraq. The problem is that too many of these people do not have the Washington > power base to get the job done. I mentioned the Super Hornet for a reason. Once > it became apparent that certain in factions in DoD wanted the plane despite all > logic, if you didn't get with the program, you were shuffled off to some career > ending make-work job. > > Let me cite another example. SECDEF Cheney canceled the V-22 Osprey which > was a very stupid thing to do (trust me on this, I'm quite familiar with the > program and the machinations going on). Without going into detail because it's > outside the scope of this list, let me just point out that Congress thought this > was crazy. They ordered him to commission an independent study to validate his > reasoning and to act on their recommendations. They weren't careful enough, > though, and let him pick the consultants and ground rules for the study. So how come they would make such a sophomoric mistake? Surely the Congressional staff has seen such shenanigans before and have an idea about how to cook the books. > Osprey > supporters thought the game was over at that point. However, the study group was > composed of honest people. They came back and said that the decision was wrong, > uneconomical and detrimental to the nation's security. The Osprey should proceed. > Remember now, these are the people he picked Himself! Well, reversing his > decision would mean a loss of face. So, he announced he would ignore the results > of His Own study and the V-22 would stay dead. When Congress funded the program, > he impounded the money (sound familiar?). It wasn't until Cheney left office and > the Bush administration would not lose face by reversing its SECDEF (plus it was > an election year) that the money for the V-22 was released. Given the today's > even more stringent move to keep everyone singing the party line, why it be > different now? They may (possibly) indeed be developing something new, but the > SR-71 represents an embarrassment to those who killed it and that's a big driver. > > > The other side being, that of a public out-cry and embarrassment should > > the mil/govt be taken by surprise [Politicians don't like that] - India > > for example, or a chemical bomb blast on US soil. > > > > Then politicians will blame someone lower down. :( The first time a flight > of Super Hornets encountered a flight of exported Rafales (assuming good pilots) > and gets its clock cleaned, Washington will scream at Navair and will wonder why > no one warned them. > I have been reading your posts for some time now and I am always amazed at your descriptions of how decisions get made in Washington. It sounds like these clowns are playing games at the expense of the country and should be fired (and would be if they tried this at a small company in the private sector - or they would bankrupt the company). My impression is Dick Cheney is no fool - so why would he make such a stupid decision? So good decisions are an accident? Was the F-14 a bad decision too? With so many bad decisions how come anything works? Where did this mindset come from that it is better to save face than to accomplish something useful and is there any cure? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:45:53 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Seven square miles surrounded by reality. At 09:44 AM 8/31/98 -0600, you wrote: >betnal@ns.net wrote: > >> Remember, one of the best definitions of Washington is, "7 square miles >> surrounded by reality". - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- Ya'll seem to know a lot about jets but don't seem to know much about life inside the Beltway. In which case I would argue conversely a reality, albeit a separate reality exists there. It's all about ego's that are massaged by power and money. There is a giant cornucopia of opportunity just waiting for those with the foresight, fortitude, mindset and properly rationalized set of ethics to walk in and scoop it all up by the bushelfull. What we loathe, abhor, ignore and ridicule, they nurture, thrive, benefit and prosper from. That is reality. You go to the right prep school and you meet friends for life who appoint you to the right committee's and power positions. And then when all the rest of us look to them for leadership they move lockstep forward in a fashion which ultimately benefits the oligarchy they perpetuate. We allow them to because we don't want to dirty our hands. They keep the fires of industry burning strong so the masses have disposable wealth and thus no reason to ever react with any authority. Everyone comes out on top that way. Who in their right mind would complain about living in America? There is slack in the system to allow everyone to do their own thing. Everybody's happy this way. Mind you I am not commenting on the ethics of this reality, simply describing what exists. I don't think its a pessimistic picture. Anybody here have to sell pencils or apples to buy gas for their jet ski's?? Someone once said....."If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you." patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:10:44 -0500 From: "Dolney, Al" Subject: [none] I've been following the SW list for about a year now and I am surprised that there has been no list traffic on the Dec. 22/29, 1997 issue of AW&ST. On page 96 William Scott writes in an editor's perspective about the need for the "black world" to open up it secrets to the world. Specifically, he mentions "They [black projects] could easily raise the curtain on the few Mach 3 attack aircraft that apparently lurk around the British Isles, Langely AFB, Va. and Western U.S. bases with negligible effect on national security". I also saw on The Learning Channel over the weekend of Tom Clancy theorizing that there were two types of high speed aircraft operated by the Air Force out of Groom Lake, Nevada: a small F-15 sized aircraft and "one much larger". Comments? Thanks, Al Dolney al.dolney@boeing.com Al Dolney EXPRESS Rack L&M Manager Ph. 256-961-1984 Bpr. # 256-512-6161 JT-01 al.dolney@boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:43:17 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Al Dolney wrote: "I've been following the SW list for about a year now and I am surprised that there has been no list traffic on the Dec. 22/29, 1997 issue of AW&ST. On page 96 William Scott writes in an editor's perspective about the need for the "black world" to open up it secrets to the world." Privately, deep down inside my tortured little mind, I KNOW that there is something new and fast operating out there, be it Aurora or whatever... But there is no hard proof, no significant evidence, only vague reports and sightings, nothing to really hang your hat on. Thus, even though I KNOW it exists, it doesn't. Someday, someone will finally get a good photograph of it (whatever IT is), and everyone will slap each other on the back and say "SEE!. I told you so! I knew it all along..." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:51:41 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: >I've been following the SW list for about a year now and I am surprised >that there has been no list traffic on the Dec. 22/29, 1997 issue of >AW&ST. On page 96 William Scott writes in an editor's perspective about >the need for the "black world" to open up it secrets to the world. > >Specifically, he mentions "They [black projects] could easily raise the >curtain on the few Mach 3 attack aircraft that apparently lurk around >the British Isles, Langely AFB, Va. and Western U.S. bases with >negligible effect on national security". I'll guess that "attack aircraft" was speculation on Scott's part. there may be fast birds out there, but who knows what they're being used for. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:21:58 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: B-3 Vindicator Has anyone seen or heard about a delta-wing A-12-like (as in GD A-12) aircraft called the B-3 Vindicator? For that matter, has anyone heard about another A-12-like (or shaped) aircraft in the vicinity of Aera 51? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:38:31 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar Brad Hitch wrote Monday, August 31, 1998 11:45 AM: I have been reading your posts for some time now and I am always amazed at your descriptions of how decisions get made in Washington. It sounds like these clowns are playing games at the expense of the country and should be fired (and would be if they tried this at a small company in the private sector - or they would bankrupt the company). My impression is Dick Cheney is no fool - so why would he make such a stupid decision? So good decisions are an accident? Was the F-14 a bad decision too? With so many bad decisions how come anything works? Where did this mindset come from that it is better to save face than to accomplish something useful and is there any cure? - --------------------------------- This type of decision making should come as no surprise. Dick Cheney was primarily looking at cost cutting back the military - that's all. He was only in there for a short time, and not the long hall, i.e. not years. So he could cut whatever he "felt" he could cut/ax and not have to live with the repercussions of these cuts. Ben Rich's book describes this mentality when he quoted Dick as saying, that if he (SECDEF Dick) brought the SR-71 back in, they would never be able to get it out again. I kid you not. Now I ask you, if they (the mil/govt./pentagon) "would never be able to get it out" then they knew of its critical uniqueness BUT they still decided to cut it !?!?! Go Figure. Also, in the President LBJohnson era, the military commanders directly knew and told the LBJ that the Vietnam war WOULD be a long (many years) protracted war, and that it could not be won quickly or easily, but with huge casualties. I saw this from an actual TV documentary several years ago. The President didn't want to hear this - the rest is history. His advisors actual told LBJ what he wanted to hear, and not the reality of the Vietnam situation, in personal interviews they adimitted to this type of "advice" they were giving the Pres. Why did they mis-advise the Pres. because he (the pres.) just plain and simple did not want to hear the truth. This is documented. So yeah, its scary perhaps, that this does go on, and that any "good" may come out of this high risk political stakes game that is played out in Washington - kind of wonder if we should loose a lot of sleep thinking about it !!!!!! - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:01:48 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: B-3 Vindicator Yeah, there was a B-3 (not sure if it was the Vindicator) in "Wag The Dog". Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:53:37 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: B-3 Vindicator On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Tom C Robison wrote: > > > Yeah, there was a B-3 (not sure if it was the Vindicator) in "Wag The Dog". > > Tom > That movie a couple years back with John Travolta etc (Broken Arrow?) featured an imaginary "B-3"..a shrunken B-2 really. The Vindicator name brings back memories of "V for Vindicator"/"Fail Safe" ..also fictional K ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:47:53 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Reason to keep the SR down > > Brad Hitch wrote Monday, August 31, 1998 11:45 AM: > > I have been reading your posts for some time now and I am > always amazed at your descriptions of how decisions get made in Washington. I would suggest for the young'ens to read Eisenhower's Farewell address to the Nation (17 January 1961) for a little insight into how politics works, or not - it hasn't changed much in 37 years. See http://www.delta.edu/~mrburhan/ike.html for a copy (I don't vouch for the site where this copy exists. Just type "Eisenhower and Farewell" into any search engine. This site was picked at almost random.) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:27:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Ballon rules! Hey Skunkers, I just heard that a Canadian weather ballon that suppose to drop its payload at an altitude fail to do it and it is now flying in Russian territory... All three air force (Canadian, U.S. and Russia) was trying to shot it down without luck! They try from missiles to guns... Anyone know where I can find a more detail and reliable source for this news? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:38:32 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Ballon rules! At 11:27 PM 8/31/98 -0700, you wrote: > > Hey Skunkers, I just heard that a Canadian weather ballon that >suppose to drop its payload at an altitude fail to do it and it is now >flying in Russian territory... All three air force (Canadian, U.S. and >Russia) was trying to shot it down without luck! They try from missiles to >guns... > Anyone know where I can find a more detail and reliable source for >this news? > ===================== Wei-Jen......... Try this: www.newsworld.cbc.ca You might need to add a date to run a search. Use 8-30-98. If you had your home built SR-71 finished you could go shoot it down yourself. ===================== patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 98 10:20:53 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Ballon rules! I saw this on the news... understand that the balloon was a very large, very low pressure deal that could take lots of holes and still stay up. When I saw it on the news, it was only over the North Atlantic, but since it was somewhat radar transparent, it was screwing up trans-Atlantic flights. Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Ballon rules! Author: at INTERNET Date: 8/31/98 11:27 PM Hey Skunkers, I just heard that a Canadian weather ballon that suppose to drop its payload at an altitude fail to do it and it is now flying in Russian territory... All three air force (Canadian, U.S. and Russia) was trying to shot it down without luck! They try from missiles to guns... Anyone know where I can find a more detail and reliable source for this news? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:37:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Ballon rules! On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, patrick wrote: > > If you had your home built SR-71 finished you could go shoot it down yourself. > ===================== In fact... I was thinking about that! Use the SR-71 to "ran" very to the ballon and the shock waves will do the rest... Patrick, thanks a lot for your quota... It was very very funny! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:09:13 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: F/A-18E/F Role Secure In Future Carrier Wings An article in this weeks AW&ST details out the Super-Duper-Hornet "Super Hornet will provide mission planners with more operational flexibility and room for growth." Read on ... http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_stor.htm ... no I'm not skeptical ... - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:12:39 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Ballon rules! At 10:37 AM 9/1/98 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, patrick wrote: > >> >> If you had your home built SR-71 finished you could go shoot it down yourself. >> ===================== > > In fact... I was thinking about that! Use the SR-71 to "ran" very >to the ballon and the shock waves will do the rest... > >======================= Wei-Jen: So does that mean you have already calculated the shock wave values to take down the balloon? Your professor's must be real proud of you! ========================= patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:27:35 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Aurora. also a way to vote. (read on.) I like to think of it this way, which I believe is a pretty fair and rational way of looking at the whole "our government is lying" conspiracy thing. Assume for the moment that Aurora does in fact exist. But no one in authority has ever emphatically denied its existence; therefore, they haven't directly lied about Aurora. If Cohen said it took two days for satellite recon to become available, that still would not be a lie, even if they did use Aurora; indeed, they did have to wait (even if they didn't use it). Therfore, classified programs do not necessitate lying. An outright denial speculative classified programs would be similar to the captain of a commercial airliner, who suddenly announces to the passengers, "Ladies and gentlemen, please relax. The wings are not on fire." Obviously everybody would go frantic. Similarly, the military has no need to publicly announce that every supposed classified program doesn't exist, because no one would believe them. Therefore since they don't discuss classified programs, then they're technically not lying about them. There are careful ways to negotiate situations so that they don't have to confront a particular topic, and this is what the military and politicians have been doing for decades. If a cover-up exists, I would hesitate to call it a conspiracy, because in reality most of the time it's probably a good thing. Undoubtedly the government is never telling the whole truth; said Kelly Johnson while he was in the intelligence loop, "The state of the world is about 70% worse than what you read in the newspapers." So it's really a delicate issue, trying to balance the reality of classified programs with the paranoia of a conspiracy. Why don't we take a vote? I would like everyone to head over to http://www.topflight.net/conspiracy to take a vote. All I'm really interested is how many people believe Aurora exists, but there are some other questions there too if you feel like filling them out. This could be very interesting. If I get enough responses I will publish the results here. Sound like a good idea? Will everyone please vote? Thanks, Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:29:16 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: vote. I am interested in finding out how widespread the belief is in Aurora's existence. I would like everyone to vote if possible. http://www.topflight.net/conspiracy Thanks, Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:28:30 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Janes Article From Jane's News Briefs - jane's Defense Weekly "Briefing: Black Watch The US Air Force denies operating black-world aircraft and claims that a secret U-2 spy plane replacement does not exist. So why is a major aerospace subcontractor providing parts for two high-flying covert manned aircraft, asks Jane's Defence Weekly." Anyone seen this story? Worth reading, or....? Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. The ones that change the world!" _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:12:39 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Janes This was on Janes defense headlines this a.m. I don't have access to the full story, can someone else here post it? Briefing: Black Watch "The US Air Force denies operating black-world aircraft and claims that a secret U-2 spy plane replacement does not exist. So why is a major aerospace subcontractor providing parts for two high-flying covert manned aircraft, asks Jane's Defence Weekly." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:13:56 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: vote. I with Ryan. Let us all vote. I'm interested in finding out the general consensus is on this list. The results may stimulate a lot of interesting discussion. Come on all, cast your vote. - -Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Kirk [SMTP:ryan@topflight.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 6:29 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: vote. > > I am interested in finding out how widespread the belief is in > Aurora's > existence. I would like everyone to vote if possible. > http://www.topflight.net/conspiracy > > Thanks, > Ryan > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Ryan Kirk > Website Architect > Topflight Productions > http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:37:03 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: RE: Janes - Black world aircraft From: Martin Hurst To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: Janes - Black world aircraft Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:53:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain There is a possible web link off of their web site (I searched using the key words, "black and world and aircraft), http://www.janes.com/company/search/searchset.html that may describe this article, but it requires a subscription username and password. Anyone have access to this link? JDW 27/08/98 - BLACK WATCH http://www.janes.com/defence/onlineproducts/jdw2/subscribe/americas/jdw1 309.html - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom C Robison [SMTP:tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 9:13 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Janes > > > > This was on Janes defense headlines this a.m. > I don't have access to the full story, can someone else here post it? > > Briefing: Black Watch > "The US Air Force denies operating black-world aircraft and claims > that a > secret U-2 spy plane replacement does not exist. So why is a major > aerospace > subcontractor providing parts for two high-flying covert manned > aircraft, > asks Jane's Defence Weekly." > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:01:54 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Ritter I suppose this is old news, however... As Art indicated a few deays ago, U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has resigned his position, citing lack of resolve by the U.S. and the U.N security council. Read all about it in the September 7 issue of U.S. News and World Report. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:42:11 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: Korean Satellite Jeez, what else don't we know about here. (incase you haven't heard, N. Korea launched a satellite, not a ballistic missle as reported earlier) I'd say we need to upgrade or reactivate a source of intell, being last to know is getting old real fast. Drew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 07:43:16 -0700 From: patrick Subject: [none] Hey Wei-Jen........your balloon has landed. It came down finally on a small island off the NW coast of Finland. Art will love this part. The Royal Canuck AF sent some of their CF/A-18's after it. No fire breathing stuff but they expended over a thousand rounds of gunfire at the invincible menace. When it moved into the air traffic channels over the N. Atlantic they were guiding traffic 125 miles north or south of the thing. You can put your SR homebuilt back in your garage. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:17:03 +0000 From: patrick wiggins Subject: Re: Korean Satellite Hi! Here's what "Jonathan's Space Report" has to say about this: The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (N Korea) launched a Taepo Dong 1 missile at 0307 UTC on Aug 31. N Korea now claims that a third stage on the missile placed a small satellite in orbit. US sources so far have reported the launching as a suborbital missile test, and have not tracked any satellite in orbit. It's just possible that a small payload might have been missed, but Space Command claims they don't see anything. Launch site is given as Musudan-ri, North Hamgyong Province. Claimed orbit is 218 x 6978 km, inclination not specified. Drew Menser wrote: > Jeez, what else don't we know about here. > (incase you haven't heard, N. Korea launched a satellite, not a > ballistic missle as reported earlier) Clear skies! Patrick :-) - -- Patrick Wiggins Hansen Planetarium Education Department email: p.wiggins@m.cc.utah.edu voice: 801.531-4952, fax: 801.531-4948 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:13:27 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Korean Satellite I saw the report yesterday. It said that the North Koreans were claiming that they had launched a satellite. There was no confirmation. Given the generally low credibility of the North Koreans, I wondered - and still do - whether another source has confirmed the North Korean claim. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Drew Menser Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 9:42 AM To: Skunk Works List Subject: Korean Satellite Jeez, what else don't we know about here. (incase you haven't heard, N. Korea launched a satellite, not a ballistic missle as reported earlier) I'd say we need to upgrade or reactivate a source of intell, being last to know is getting old real fast. Drew ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #58 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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