From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #66 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 Monday, September 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 066 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Spam must die Re: Spam must live DC-X/duPont Re: Spam must die U-2 Info Caltech Aeronautics seminar Unclassifed U-2 history...... What about DC-X? Re: Spam must live A-12 Avenger Re: What about DC-X? ET eats SPAM Re: FWD: Small Bird-Like Spy Plane Re: Spam must live FYI - Pentagon curbs Web content UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:33:13 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: Spam must die FWIW, I found this assoctated with that phone number on a BBS WEB page: delta_21@usa.net Drew > {snip} > You are correct, In this care the headers were forged to appeard as to be > from the list and the mail routing list is bogus as well, so there is > really no path back to trace. > > Sorry, > George ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:15:47 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Spam must live Well we only have had 20 responses after the lone incident of spamming, Obviously not all of you are contributing your fair share of reponses to this timely topic. If we are going to continue this thread then many more of you lurkers need to chime in with your individual comments. We do care and want to hear your particular point of view. And I really want to give special credit to the person who was generous enough to take his time to share a copy of another spam letter he received at home. This is very helpful to all the members of this list who want to compare and contrast both spam emails. Are there similarities? Any subltle differences worth noting or commenting on? Does any one feel that spam letter was better than the one we originally received? And if so should we take this as an affront of some type. Keep in my mind these are sent anonymously to newslist like ours so this factor should be considered. For now we are merely random receivers. Unless of course you believe in alternative mysterioso forces at work in nature which indeed bring some unknown order to our apparent chotic lives. If so, gosh let's hear them. As popular as this thread has been do we need to condsider inviting more spam email. We could vote on this. If enough interest is generated we should set up a committee to proactively search for good spam and be selective about it. With all our collective technical skills we should expect and search for excellence. Hey, Ben Rich would be proud of our efforts. So fellow lurkers, we need your comments. And if you have any more good spam that is worth reposting to the group, lets hear from you too. After all, this news list is what you make of it. So let's turn this negative into something positive we can all enjoy. Thanks for taking the time to share! patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:47:53 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: DC-X/duPont And maybe the DC-X died because someone finally realized that it would need a empty/full weight fraction of 30% to suceed, the prototype sat at about 60% and no one saw a way to get below 45-50%... Their take-offs and landings were a nifty accomplishment, but they had a loooong way to go before they met the mission. Sadly, the X-33 faces the same obstacles. Rumor is that it is a program to be avoided within the SW. As to duPont - I can remember seeing his conceptual drawings of the scheme 20 years ago. My bet is that they gave him money so that he will quit bugging them, kinda like how NASA gave money to the Carter Copter. He probably has his Congressman making waves for him, like a lot of these other people with wild ideas. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 98 04:35:48 -0000 From: User Subject: Re: Spam must die If spam was sighted over Las Vegas at 90,000 feet at Mach 9 I'd like to hear about it. If spam was sighted hovering over a top secret facility, let's hear more. If spam has been seena t the skunk works, go for it. Otherwise please stop talking about it. Unless our mailing list starts gettign bombarded to death by the spammers. I called the number and told the tape to take us off thelist or I'd start a class action lawsuit. I did not represent the list. JAZ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:38:41 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: U-2 Info http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/980920/q.html Drew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:40:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Caltech Aeronautics seminar For those living in Los Angeles area, there is a Caltech Aeronautic Seminar open to public who may be interesting to you. On November 16, 1998 Mr. Robert J. Gilliland, retired experimental test pilot, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works will make a talk about "Test Flying the World's Fastest Airplanes". It is going to be at Caltech Room 306 Firestone, Monday 1:00 p.m. You can check: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~ichasiot/html/fall.html May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman." -- Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, GAF, aka Karaya One, worlds leading ace, 352 victories in W.W.II. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:08:26 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Unclassifed U-2 history...... Hello All, I'm sure that many of yoou have heard that the CIA "declassifed" it's history of the U-2. Copies can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)(I was told they have a limited amount of copies), they can be reached at: NTIS 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 1-800-553-NTIS or 703-605-6000 The title of the history is: "The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974", their are still lots of black pages and alot of the info is already known. Chapter 6, titled: "The U-2's Intended Successor: Project Oxcart, 1956-1968", sorry it was blacked out......But I know where you can read a copy....;) They also have not released the UK or Taiwanese portion of the history as (at least this is what I was told) the Dept. of State doesn't want to cause anyone to become upset. Also did you know that the mainland Chinese have the largest collection of U-2s outside of the US! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:10:49 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: What about DC-X? > On a (slightly) more on topic thread, what's going on with the >DC-X? I saw the video of it taking off and landing but I've heard >little since. On it's last flight, one landing leg failed to deploy because a hydraulic hose wasn't connected. It toppled over and exploded after landing. The program's been dead since then. +++++++++++++++++++++ Please, refresh my aging memory... what is/was the DC-X _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:19:23 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Spam must live So fellow lurkers, we need your comments. And if you have any more good spam that is worth reposting to the group, lets hear from you too. After all, this news list is what you make of it. So let's turn this negative into something positive we can all enjoy. Thanks for taking the time to share! patrick cullumber +++++++++++++++++++++ SPAM??? Yech, tastes like cat food! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:12:58 +0200 (METDST) From: pharabod@in2p3.fr Subject: A-12 Avenger Could not find the info on the web... Does anybody know: How many A-12 Avenger planes were built? Did the A-12 Avenger ever fly? If yes, when? Thanks in advance, J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:20:59 -0700 From: Dave Cox Subject: Re: What about DC-X? On 21 Sep 98 at 8:10, Tom C Robison wrote: > >Please, refresh my aging memory... what is/was the DC-X >_________________________________________________ It was a vertical take-off and landing technology demonstration rocket built by McDac for SDI/BMDO. It was 40ft tall and used 4 RL-10 LH/LOX engines. It was supposed to demonstrate fast turnaround for cryogenic engines, and autonomous low speed manuvers and landing. It flew 8 or so times. A scaled up version was McDac's entry for the X-33 program, but lost out to LockMart's VentureStar prototype. - --dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:25:53 -0700 From: "Alun Whittaker" Subject: ET eats SPAM This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BDE54A.363B04A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patrick Cullumber wrote: "Name two things that are forbidden topics on this newslist........UFO's and Spam!!!" Ryan Kirk wrote: "I would seriously question the legimitacy of Ben Rich's quote by SETI." - -------------------------------------------------------------------- First -- but the Skunk Works has been doing such a fine job of building UNIDENTIFIABLE (AND UN-SHOOTDOWNABLE) FLYING OBJECTS, Do you really want us to stop discussing the U-2, SR-71, F-117, etc? And, if these USOs (unidentifiable skunky objects) sometimes get misidentified as alien spacecraft (or vice-versa), isn't that a viable subject for discussion here? Next -- I do believe you mean CSETI. The SETI Institute is a very different, less sensationalistic, and more scientifically established organization (although I've always doubted that the similarity of names was any coincidence) not given to quoting aeroplane builders. Last -- but not least - enough about SPAM. Stop now! Alun Whittaker - ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BDE54A.363B04A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Patrick Cullumber wrote:=20 "Name two things that = are=20 forbidden topics on this newslist........UFO's and = Spam!!!"
 
Ryan Kirk wrote: = "I would seriously question the = legimitacy of=20 Ben=20 Rich's quote by SETI."
-----------------------------------------------= - ---------------------
 
First -- but the Skunk Works has=20 been doing such a fine job of building UNIDENTIFIABLE (AND = UN-SHOOTDOWNABLE)=20 FLYING OBJECTS,  Do you really want us to stop discussing the U-2, = SR-71,=20 F-117, etc? And, if these USOs (unidentifiable skunky objects) = sometimes=20 get misidentified as alien spacecraft (or vice-versa), isn't that a = viable=20 subject for discussion here?
 
Next --=20 I do believe you mean CSETI. The SETI Institute is a very = different, less=20 sensationalistic, and more scientifically established organization = (although=20 I've always doubted that the similarity of names was any coincidence) = not given=20 to quoting aeroplane builders.
 
Last --=20 but not least - enough about SPAM. Stop now!
 
Alun=20 Whittaker
- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BDE54A.363B04A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:32:32 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: FWD: Small Bird-Like Spy Plane Joni wrote: "Only in the end, it was stated that it CAN be used to spy on the average person. In fact, the newsperson stated that cameras that will look like "bugs" that fly around will be developed within 5 years. That the fly on your wall, might not be an average "fly" at all, but a minute spy camera!" ========== Sounds like someone is going to have to market a line of stronger fly-swatters... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:23:18 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Spam must live scientifically produced animal matter (SPAM); those little white things are worms with lots of protein... - ------------------- Tom C Robison wrote: > > So fellow lurkers, we need your comments. And if you have any more good > spam that is worth reposting to the group, lets hear from you too. After > all, this news list is what you make of it. So let's turn this negative > into something positive we can all enjoy. Thanks for taking the time to > share! > > patrick cullumber > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > SPAM??? Yech, tastes like cat food! - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:08:58 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: FYI - Pentagon curbs Web content Pentagon curbs Web content Web content Top Pentagon officials are scouring military Web sites to see if too much information is being made public -- data that could potentially help the country's enemies. Some observers fear that listing members of specific military units could help terrorists find revenge targets, for example, particularly after an operation such as the recent missile strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Click on the link below for the full story http://www2.idg.com.au/CWT1997.nsf/CWTCurrent/NT000060AA Grab your web content bargains now before Uncle closes shop! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:27:06 -0700 From: patrick Subject: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings ArialPatrick ArialCullumberArial wrote: "Name two things that are forbidden topics on this newslist........UFO's andArial Spam!!!Arial" Ryan Kirk Arialwrote: "I would seriously question the legimitacy of BenArial Rich's quote by SETI.Arial" -------------------------------------------------------------------- ArialFirst -- but the Skunk Works has been doing such a fine job of building UNIDENTIFIABLE (AND UN-SHOOTDOWNABLE) FLYING OBJECTS, Do you really want us to stop discussing the U-2, SR-71, F-117, etc? And, if these USOs (unidentifiable skunky objects) sometimes get misidentified as alien spacecraft (or vice-versa), isn't that a viable subject for discussion here? ArialNext -- I do believe you mean CSETI. The SETI Institute is a very different, less sensationalistic, and more scientifically established organization (although I've always doubted that the similarity of names was any coincidence) not given to quoting aeroplane builders. ArialLast -- but not least - enough about SPAM. Stop now! ArialAlun Whittaker =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I have purposefully avoided this topic as long as I can. First, I am not a "leader" or a "resident philosopher" of this newslist (and don't want to be!). But it seems to me this newslist is suffering a bit from a lack of direction or leadership. We seem to have new people who although have many interests, have not been around when this topic was previously kicked around in a discussion about proper subject matter. Point being is I don't make the rules up, just try to follow them. One of the foremost rules I learned when joining was the discussion of UFO's was strictly prohibited. And this is pretty straightforward. No abduction stories, no reporting of flashing red lights whizzing by in the night, no speculating on whether the Greys are subjugating some other species of aliens in underground caves. This seems fairly straight forward to most. Here again, this firm rule was in place long before I joined. And when I joined the topics available for discussion were also quite clear. These were simply the products and activities of the Skunk Works owned by Lockheed. It was later brought up that black aircraft were not only built by Lockheed but other manufacturer's as well. So were they not an interesting topic also. Although it got heated and no real clearcut decision was made, it was obvious discussion now was permitted to include "black airplane activity". And that worked quite well too. But here is where it gets confusing. Larry Smith made the observation that black aircraft sightings were technically sightings of unidentified flying objects. And at the time these aircraft sightings seemed to be prevalent. So what were these to be called when brought up for discussion? They were ufo's. But they were never confused in my humble opinion with those of a alien suspected origin. Examples of these were the sighting of a delta shaped craft flying amidst a gaggle of F-117's sighted personally by Bill Scott in the Antelope Valley. He postulated soon thereafter it might be something he had heard about and referred to as a "TR-3A". No subsequent sightings of this craft were ever mentioned by anyone again and no connection with that term has ever been seen from a manufacturer. Thus we have Bill's sighting and nothing to go on after that. It remains as an unidentified flying object. Several other sightings of aircraft were made back during this time. A B-70 type aircraft was reported by an individual making a low pass over Lockheed's Helendale RCS range just before dawn. Airline pilots reported seeing an "Aurora" type craft passing across their paths. The most famous and best sighting was made over the North Sea by Chris Gibson. My point here is these sightings were always made of vehicles which gave no indication whatsoever that they were from some other galaxy or dimension. These were black aircraft sightings. So their discussion has merit and as far as I recall never been off limits. The problem is they are ufo's also. I really don't see how this is hard to differentiate when determining the legitimacy of the topic. Anything the CSETI folks wish to discuss is invariably an attempt to push their views that they are able to contact alien visitors at their leisure. Clearly this topic is out of bounds for this newslist. Once again, these are not my rules, only how I remember them. I am a skeptic if you wish to label me but my intent is to challenge you to be able to confirm your beliefs. I am not interested in discussing "what-if" questions which are rampant lately on this newslist. If you wish to discuss Chris' sighting, thats fine. If you wish to discuss how the Aurora affects the policy of our State Department in dealing with terrorists, please count me out. So yes the black aircraft sightings are valid topics. Classic ufo stuff is strictly off limits. I personally am only really interested in F-117's. But I find the other aircraft of general interest too. I really prefer discussing hardware and not how we define our topics. If this newslist should want to change its focus, its not my decision. But until that time I feel we need to follow the previously accepted guidelines. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:53:48 -0700 From: Dan Zingrabe Subject: Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Arial< Examples of these were the sighting of a delta shaped craft flying amidst a gaggle of F-117's sighted personally by Bill Scott in the Antelope Valley. He postulated soon thereafter it might be something he had heard about and referred to as a "TR-3A". No subsequent sightings of this craft were ever mentioned by anyone again and no connection with that term has ever been seen from a manufacturer. Thus we have Bill's sighting and nothing to go on after that. It remains as an unidentified flying object. Ahem. from the Desert Rat, archived on Ufomind, excerpted on my pages: An experienced aviation watcher says that he and his companions saw an unacknowledged delta winged aircraft about 35 miles east of Groom on Nov. 23 (1995). This was a triangular craft with rounded corners, as has been described in the press as the "TR-3A." The witness works for a major aircraft developer in California and says that he knows aircraft well. He says the sighting took place around 7 or 8 in the evening (long after dark) as he and several companions were traveling north on US-93 for a visit to the Tikaboo Valley. South of Alamo, they stopped to watch some orange flares being dropped by jets on maneuver. These flares, intended to distract heat-seeking missiles, are a common sight in the area, but the jets themselves were not. The witness was drawn by the unusual lighting of the jets: Four had only a single red strobe on the bottom about midway down the fuselage. About four others had only three steady lights: red lights in the front and rear and a white light at mid-fuselage. The witness says that the moon had just risen, so he was able to see the outline of the aircraft from below, using low-power binoculars and looking almost directly upward from their location near the Pahranagat Lakes. The planes with the single red strobes he recognized as F-117A Stealth fighters. The other four aircraft had a distinctive triangular shape with rounded corners. Both the witness and his companion, also an aviation worker, insist that these aircraft were not B-2s, the only acknowledged craft in the U.S. arsenal that resembles that shape. And I have several other sightings of this thing cataloged on the web site. Several other sightings of aircraft were made back during this time. A B-70 type aircraft was reported by an individual making a low pass over Lockheed's Helendale RCS range just before dawn. And a number of other locations across the country. Blah, blah. Airline pilots reported seeing an "Aurora" type craft passing across their paths. No, they by and large reported triangles. Are you sying the A-12 is "Aurora"-type?? The most famous and best sighting was made over the North Sea by Chris Gibson. My point here is these sightings were always made of vehicles which gave no indication whatsoever that they were from some other galaxy or dimension. These were black aircraft sightings. So their discussion has merit and as far as I recall never been off limits. The problem is they are ufo's also. Gee, as long as no one claims an unidentified crft came from Dimension X or Alpha Centauri, I don't see what the problem is. I really don't see how this is hard to differentiate when determining the legitimacy of the topic. Anything the CSETI folks wish to discuss is invariably an attempt to push their views that they are able to contact alien visitors at their leisure. Clearly this topic is out of bounds for this newslist. Once again, these are not my rules, only how I remember them. I am a skeptic if you wish to label me but my intent is to challenge you to be able to confirm your beliefs. Then do it off the list. I am not interested in discussing "what-if" questions which are rampant lately on this newslist. If you wish to discuss Chris' sighting, thats fine. If you wish to discuss how the Aurora affects the policy of our State Department in dealing with terrorists, please count me out. Wasn't this post about aliens, ufos, etc? Hmmm.... are you part of the Abu Nidal Space Alien cover-up? Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:02:28 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Patrick wrote: >"Name two things that are forbidden topics on this newslist........UFO's and Spam!!!" Ryan Kirk wrote: >"I would seriously question the legimitacy of Ben Rich's quote by SETI." Alun Whittaker wrote: >First -- but the Skunk Works has been doing such a fine job of building >UNIDENTIFIABLE (AND UN-SHOOTDOWNABLE) FLYING OBJECTS, Do you really want >us to stop discussing the U-2, SR-71, F-117, etc? And, if these USOs >(unidentifiable skunky objects) sometimes get misidentified as alien >spacecraft (or vice-versa), isn't that a viable subject for discussion >here? Actually no. Some time ago it was decided that we would not broach the UFO issue at all, because if one interpretation of UFO's was allowed then the other should be too. So in interest of fairness, we decided to save the bandwidth and the pissing contests and decided to outlaw it. Yes, this throws out some interesting quotes, like the Ben Rich quotes, but so be it. Pat wrote: > ... > >One of the foremost rules I learned when joining was the discussion of >UFO's was strictly prohibited. And this is pretty straightforward. >No abduction stories, no reporting of flashing red lights whizzing by >in the night, no speculating on whether the Greys are subjugating some >other species of aliens in underground caves. This seems fairly straight >forward to most. Here again, this firm rule was in place long before I >joined. That is correct Pat. >And when I joined the topics available for discussion were also quite clear. >These were simply the products and activities of the Skunk Works owned by >Lockheed. It was later brought up that black aircraft were not only built >by Lockheed but other manufacturer's as well. So were they not an interesting >topic also. It was allowed to talk about these types of aircraft. So the B-58, for example, and some of its black parasites have been mentioned and discussed a little. We've talked about the XF-103 and XF-108, McDD's GOBAL REACH has been discussed, you guys discussed HyperSoar and Hyper-X when I was away on sabbatical. We've had lively and interesting discussions of Navy fighters. The tendency has been to allow these to continue to a point, but the goal I think has been to not turn this list into another rec.aviation.military, but to specialize on Lockheed Skunk Works history/products and related technology. So discussion of non Lockheed advanced projects has also been allowed to a certain point. It seems to have been working well up to 8 weeks ago when I left for sabbatical. And again, we don't want to break any laws. So no classified info. > Although it got heated and no real clearcut decision was made, >it was obvious discussion now was permitted to include "black airplane activity". >And that worked quite well too. Yes. Sightings of aircraft were agreed to be allowed. More on that when I reply to Dan's reply. >Larry Smith made the observation that black aircraft sightings were technically >sightings of unidentified flying objects. And at the time these aircraft >sightings seemed to be prevalent. So what were these to be called when brought >up for discussion? They were ufo's. But they were never confused in my humble >opinion with those of a alien suspected origin. That's correct. There has never been any confusion when discussing this in the past. UFO's means alleged vehicles not from 'here', the classical meaning. So we are actually saying that unknown aircraft, with credible performance, are not UFO's, in the classical sense. What if there is a question about credible performance, then we'll decide an a case by case basis I guess. That case should be rare anyway. I don't think it's ever come up. We've been steering clear of the triangle sightings reported by the UFO people too. However we have discussed flying wing aircraft projects and flying wing aircraft technology, and related areas such as visual stealth, or applicable RCS technology etc. >Examples of these were the sighting of a delta shaped craft flying amidst a >gaggle of F-117's sighted personally by Bill Scott in the Antelope Valley. >... . It remains as an unidentified flying object. Yes. But allowed as it is an alleged new aircraft. No proof of existence however. >... >My point here is these sightings were always made of vehicles which gave no >indication whatsoever that they were from some other galaxy or dimension. >These were black aircraft sightings. So their discussion has merit and as far >as I recallf never been off limits. Yes. >I really don't see how this is hard to differentiate when determining the >legitimacy of the topic. Up to now, it hasn't been. >Once again, these are not my rules, only how I remember them. Yes. I think you remember most of them well. > I am a skeptic >if you wish to label me but my intent is to challenge you to be able to confirm >your beliefs. I think it is important to have a skeptical mind when it comes to sightings of anything that is unusual. There has been too much gullibility in the black aircraft hobby in the past. >I am not interested in discussing "what-if" questions which are >rampant lately on this newslist. I haven't gotten through over 2000 email messages since I've been away. So I must have missed quite a bit. Certain types of "what-if" questions have been allowed. For example, technical "what-if" questions and "what-if" policy questions, etc. > If you wish to discuss Chris' sighting, thats >fine. If you wish to discuss how the Aurora affects the policy of our State >Department in dealing with terrorists, please count me out. But then you don't have to contribute to such a discussion. It is allowed I think. Of course, such a discussion is hypothetical as AURORA has not been proven to exist. >So yes the black aircraft sightings are valid topics. Classic ufo stuff is >strictly off limits. Correct. > If this newslist should want to change >its focus, its not my decision. But until that time I feel we need to follow the >previously accepted guidelines. I agree. Larry Smith ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #66 ******************************** 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