From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #80 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, November 30 1998 Volume 07 : Number 080 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI Re: F-117N Re: High Flying Aircraft... Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: High Flying Aircraft... Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Fwd: NAVY EXPECTS NO CHANGES TO SUPER HORNET COST, SCHEDULE Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 02:57:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI On 11/27/98 6:18AM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Art, > > Not sure your assumption "It was originally DoD that forced the E/F on the > Navy and made it clear that the future of Naval Air was the Hornet or Naval > Air wouldn't have a future" is correct. I believe it was the Navy, > specifically Jeremy "Bear" Taylor's group that made that conclusion. > > Jim > > > > Well, USN had earlier rejected "Hornet 2000" which was the basis for the E/F. Also, SECNAV went out on a limb twice to try and get more F-14Ds, only to be slammed down by Cheney, and after F-14D was definitely terminal (killed by DoD, not Navy) the first announcements of the E/F came from DoD as a "bridge" to the AX. Also, I believe coming across info early in the '90s that USN removed request for E/F from on of the early budget submissions on the grounds that its R&D would be too much of a drain on Navair given its very limited improvements over Hornet C/D. DoD put E/F money back in USN's request, but did not increase overall Navair budget request, meaning money had to come from all other programs. This latter is what made USN realize that it was the Hornet or nothing. I can't give you a specific cite, though. Art "Does Raid work on Hornets?" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 03:03:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117N On 11/27/98 6:19AM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Art, > > Three versions of what? > > JIm > > >There were actually about three versions (some of which carried an "X" > >suffix) > >that made it to a detailed stage > > > Three versions of advanced and Naval F-117 derivatives. F-117B, F-117N and A/F-117X (there was also RAF F-117C and USAF F-117A+, but I'm not sure how detailed they got). Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:39:06 -0600 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft... Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > I suspect the number given (140,500ft.) in the original post is simply > incorrect. Perhaps they used FL's and there was some confusion because of that. > As far as I know, ATC uses Flight Levels exclusively. Is this not true? > > Anyone have any details on this ft. vs. FL's? Flight Levels are used at altitudes over 18,000 feet, which is FL 180. Flight Levels are in hundreds of feet. Also, all aircraft above 18,000 feet use a standard altimeter setting of 29.92 inches, and all flights are conducted under intrument flight rules (IFR). Could the pilot have said, "one four zero, five hundred feet", meaning FL 140 plus 500 feet? Sounds like very awkward and certainly non-standard phrasing. Besides, at 14,500 feet Flight Levels should not be used. - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:49:55 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Kurt Rudolph wrote: >> Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught Palmdale, >> on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft report its altitude >> as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what this may have been? 140,500 >> seems pretty high. Greg W. responds: >Could you please provide some more details? ... Good questions Greg! Me, I wouldn't have given him any hints though. Personally, I've stopped chasing this kind of thing. Anyway, for one thing, without more information or a recording, it's pretty impossible to understand what it really was. It could have been even some sounding rocket test or something. If it was an aircraft, to actually say the altitude like that, sounds dubious. Also, it isn't a multiple of 1,000 feet (perhaps minor). Anyway, here's some interesting stuff from the FAA: >REFERENCE- >FAA ORDER 7110.65, MILITARY OPERATIONS ABOVE FL 600, PARAGRAPH 9-3-11. > >Return To Chapter 9 TOC > >9-3-11 MILITARY OPERATIONS ABOVE FL 600 >Updated: 2/29/96 > >EN ROUTE > >Control aircraft operating above FL 600 using the following procedures: > >a. Flight plans involving supersonic flight are required 16 hours in advance >of proposed departure times for processing and approval by the ARTCC's >concerned. The originating ARTCC, where the flight plan is first filed, may >waive the 16 hour advance filing requirement. I wonder if Groom is an ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center). > >b. The route of flight shall be defined by at least one high altitude fix >within each ARTCC area without regard to the distance between fixes. >Additionally, the entry and exit points of turns of 90 degrees or more will >be designated. That was interesting! I wonder if they actually do that. I wonder if the high speed X-33 flight will adhere to that? > >c. Elapsed times from takeoff to the first fix in each ARTCC area shall be >included in the route of flight. > >d. The ARTCC which originates the flight plan shall forward departure times >to all ARTCC's responsible for processing the flight plan. Again, I wonder if Groom is an ARTCC. > >e. Approval of the flight plan indicates approval of both route and FL's >(if stated) including operations below FL 600 (aerial refueling). There's another FAA rule for IFR, that says that 5K ft. separation is required for aircraft above FL 600 (60,000 ft). >... Later it says: >NOTE- >... >ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS THAT SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT DURING >TURNS, EITHER PROGRAMMED OR AS THE RESULT OF VECTORS, WILL LOSE A FEW >THOUSAND FEET. VECTORING SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT SERIOUSLY AFFECTS THE RANGE AND >MISSION OBJECTIVES. RADAR SEPARATION IS THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SEPARATING A >SUBSONIC AIRCRAFT BOTH FROM ANOTHER SUBSONIC AIRCRAFT OR FROM A SUPERSONIC >AIRCRAFT. > >1. FAAO 7110.65, Paragraph 4-5-1, Vertical Separation Minima - 5,000 feet. Ah, there it was, the 5K separation. And the following is interesting! > >NOTE- >1. THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES PRECLUDE THE >TRANSMISSION OF ACTUAL ALTITUDE INFORMATION ON THE AIR / GROUND OR LANDLINE >CIRCUITS. A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT DETAILING THE PLAN FOR ASCERTAINING ALTITUDE >CODES FOR THE DAY SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE TO THE CONTROLLERS AT THEIR >POSITIONS OF OPERATION. > >2. PILOTS WILL REPORT THEIR ALTITUDE, USING THE CODED PLAN, AND INTENDED >FLIGHT PROFILE ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH EACH ARTCC. Pretty cool eh? >Could an air-breather run that high? Or would it have to switch to >ramjet or something? If it was going fast enough it could breath air, but at that altitude and speed, it would be attempting to get more thrust from momentum change of its onboard propellant, like a rocket, than traditional airbreathing. There are also subsonic combustion concepts (heck they've been built and tested), that are combined rockets and airbreathers. And we all saw the recent concept stuff about Hyper-Soar that skips up to a 130,000 ft. alt. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:25:56 +1100 From: "Andrew See" Subject: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 >(ITP, Feb. 19, p1). "that maneuvering performance is equal to or superior >>to that of the most likely current-generation threat aircraft including, >>but not limited to the Su-27 and MiG-29, as well as the Lot 12 F/A-18C/D; Obviously the US would never do this for political reasons, but I can't help thinking a navalised EF2000 would better fulfil the Superhornet role. After all the EF *is* designed to be capable of mixing it with the latest Fulcrum and Flanker variants in a dogfight, whilst at the same time having excellent a2g and antiship capabilities. Plus there is the supercruising, long range, IRST, TIALDS, reduced RCS design. Can the 18E do all this? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 01:55:35 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft... That's what the man said! Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America > Could the pilot have said, "one four zero, five hundred feet", >meaning >FL 140 plus 500 feet? Sounds like very awkward and certainly >non-standard phrasing. Besides, at 14,500 feet Flight Levels should >not >be used. > >-- >Dave Bethke > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 01:55:35 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Sure, I'd like to "pilot" a sounding rocket, I'd even radio back every now and then.. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America >Anyway, for one thing, without more information or a recording, it's >pretty >impossible to understand what it really was. It could have been even >some sounding rocket test or something. > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 06:59:58 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 On 11/29/98 9:25PM, in message <01be1c21$e7eb2b40$29d516cb@asee2>, "Andrew See" wrote: > >(ITP, Feb. 19, p1). "that maneuvering performance is equal to or superior > >>to that of the most likely current-generation threat aircraft including, > >>but not limited to the Su-27 and MiG-29, as well as the Lot 12 F/A-18C/D; > > > Obviously the US would never do this for political reasons, but I can't help > thinking a navalised EF2000 would better fulfil the Superhornet role. The British are considering a semi-navalized version of EF2000 (or should I say Typhoon) for their next carriers. I believe it would take off without a catapult but would have an arrested landing (or is it the reverse?). They are also looking at JSF. While the Rafale would seem a natural, for political reasons it's highly unlikely it would be considered. They'd probably buy the E/F before the Rafale (it would look bad if one of the EF2000 partners bought any Rafales). > After > all the EF *is* designed to be capable of mixing it with the latest Fulcrum > and Flanker variants in a dogfight, This is the least important aspect of air-to-air > whilst at the same time having excellent > a2g and antiship capabilities. Plus there is the supercruising, long range, > IRST, TIALDS, reduced RCS design. While the Eurofighter is probably a clearly superior aircraft to the Hornet E/F, it is still very hard to get really detailed info on what its range/payload are with representative loads under specified conditions, and its pricing remains ambiguous (the "1/2 the cost of an F-22" is bogus). Of course, so is the Super Hornet's. Of course, the one actually flying that really looks like a world-beater, this side of the F-22 is Rafale, and its already carrier capable. > Can the 18E do all this? > > No. ARt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 23:24:44 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Andrew See wrote: > all the EF *is* designed to be capable of mixing it with the latest Fulcrum > and Flanker variants in a dogfight, whilst at the same time having excellent > a2g and antiship capabilities. Plus there is the supercruising, long range, > IRST, TIALDS, reduced RCS design. Can the 18E do all this? Well, for almost the same price of the EF, you can buy a F-22. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The only people who never fail are those who never try." Og Mandino ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 07:32:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Oops! I just realized that my last post might be interpreted as sounding like I doubted that EF2000 and/or Rafale were more capable aircraft than Hornet E/F. No, No, A Thousand Times No! With the POSSIBLE exception of range/payload (and in the case of Rafale, not even that), the two European aircraft are Much better. Of course, I wish they'd restart A/FX which was a more capable design than both of them, but if wishes were horses... Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 23:44:49 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... >Sure, I'd like to "pilot" a sounding rocket, I'd even radio back every >now and then.. Actually I've been thinking of something like that. Anyway, no, I didn't mean a sounding rocket pilot, maybe someone involved with the flight reporting altitude or something. The point is that since we didn't have the opportunity to hear this with you, and since you didn't record it, then what can we say? Actually, it's interesting that you didn't comment on the rest of my post. You didn't apply the end of the FAA FL 600 regs to your incident. Not saying that explained it, but it's interesting! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:12:15 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 The F-18E/F price that the Navy admits to is $80 program acquisition unit cost (PAUC). The F-22 PAUC is $190 million. Jim Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Andrew See wrote: > >> all the EF *is* designed to be capable of mixing it with the latest Fulcrum >> and Flanker variants in a dogfight, whilst at the same time having excellent >> a2g and antiship capabilities. Plus there is the supercruising, long range, >> IRST, TIALDS, reduced RCS design. Can the 18E do all this? > > Well, for almost the same price of the EF, you can buy a F-22. > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > "The only people who never fail are those who never try." > > Og Mandino > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:14:24 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Fwd: NAVY EXPECTS NO CHANGES TO SUPER HORNET COST, SCHEDULE Defense Daily 30 November 1998 NAVY EXPECTS NO CHANGES TO SUPER HORNET COST, SCHEDULE By Frank Wolfe The Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft by Boeing [BA] will be delivered to the fleet next March for an operational evaluation, as scheduled, and the service does not foresee any changes to program cost or schedule, Rear Adm. John Nathman, the director of the Navy's air warfare division, told Defense Daily in an interview last week. "You have an airplane that, in my view, is a 99 percentile airplane, and we're refining the one percent," Nathman said. Last week, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) wrote a letter to Defense Secretary William Cohen asking that the Pentagon suspend Super Hornet production until the program corrects performance deficiencies identified in a recent operational test (Defense Daily, Nov. 25). Feingold also wants the Pentagon to investigate whether the Navy provided "timely information on the aircraft's test flight status" and whether the Operational Test-IIB (OT-IIB) results meet performance goals. But Nathman and Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the Navy has provided DoD with timely information on the program. Navy officials also contend that performance deficiencies are minor and that the service is correcting them. For example, Nathman said, the service is working with General Electric [GE] to install two fixes on the aircraft's F414 engines to insure the engine does not stall under extreme conditions on the carrier deck (Defense Daily, Nov. 24). General Electric is to modify the advanced Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) computer in the engine to reduce afterburner levels while on the Jet Blast Deflector. It will also modify the engine compressor to increase the engine's stall margin. The Navy said the modifications will have no impact on schedule or cost. "These are things you would expect to occur," Nathman said. "The hardware change is negligible with no impact on engine cost," the Navy said in a statement on the engine modifications. "Software change will not impact engine cost. Engineering support of these changes is covered by the current engine contract." The Super Hornet program is slightly under budget, Nathman said. The $46 billion program is the top aviation priority for the Navy, which wants 548 aircraft. Critics contend that the Super Hornet does not represent a significant jump in capability over the earlier version F/A-18C/D Hornet aircraft for the price tag. But Nathman said the Super Hornet is a quantum leap over the earlier aircraft. "There is a limit of growth on the F/A-18 [Hornets]. You can't put anything else up in it. Whether it's the right kind of moving map displays, you have to take other systems out, make them smaller and do things to them to get that capability," Nathman said. "We bought the range, the endurance around the ship, the bringback and the combat carry weight [for the Super Hornet]. That is a quantum leap over the airplane we have now." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:50:05 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Posted by : Lee Markland Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, 1992 Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. Lee Markland At 09:23 PM 11/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" > >Apple Valley is where Victorville, CA is. I was up in Wrightwood CA at the >time. I was going to sleep out on the patio at my dad's cabin. It was about >830 PM on a summer evening, 1958 [age 12]. I had sighted the same object >about a week earlier during the day time heading from the SE to the NW. I >thought it was a flat blimp. Then I saw what looked like three or four jets >streaking up from Edwards AFB on a direct course. Just as they approached, >it took off straight up. WOW. Then it was gone. > >Anyhow, as I was standing there, looking east that evening, with my trusty >telescope, I saw the same object with the setting sun reflecting off of it. >Sure enough, as I looked through the telescope, I saw it hanging there, >about 15 miles or so away. Hoovering, sorta. A flattened blimp. Looking to >the southeast, I again saw what looked like jets heading straight at it, >about 4 or 5 this time. They maneuvered under it and then climbed and each >one fired a missile. The ship started to go up but I saw two flashes. >Missiles impacting. Then it veered off towards Wrightwood, wobbling left and >right and then what appeared to be an attempt to climb. Unfortunalely, it >did not make it. It veered again, passed over Lake Arrowhead, turned, and >headed SW towards Mt San Antonio. As it passed north of me, it was glowing >blue, and getting brighter as it descended. It disappeared over the mountain >ridge west of the cabin and then I heard what sounded like a dull thud and a >roar. It apparently impacted the ground. A few minutes later I felt the >cabin shake a little. > >The next day, I climbed up the ridge at about 6 AM, and was stopped by some >Air Force dudes. That was as far as I got. They were everywhere. So I went >home and just put it aside. Needless to say, the AF Dudes had M-2 carbines >and all I had was my Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun. NO match!!! > >I saw some more outside of Winslow AZ in 1974 at my brothers place (May he >rest in peace), and before that, I was involved in a cover up at Tinker >(OKCADS) AFB back in 1966. > >Terry R. (name and address available) - -- 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: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:31:02 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Since the B-52 flies higher than the B-2 when they are both at gross weight, I am not sure how effective the anti-gravity device is! Jim Stevenson >Posted by : Lee Markland > >Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in >reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the >Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the >B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. > >Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in >conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, 1992 >Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 >electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those >who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to >admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. > >Lee Markland > >At 09:23 PM 11/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >>Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" >> >>Apple Valley is where Victorville, CA is. I was up in Wrightwood CA at the >>time. I was going to sleep out on the patio at my dad's cabin. It was about >>830 PM on a summer evening, 1958 [age 12]. I had sighted the same object >>about a week earlier during the day time heading from the SE to the NW. I >>thought it was a flat blimp. Then I saw what looked like three or four jets >>streaking up from Edwards AFB on a direct course. Just as they approached, >>it took off straight up. WOW. Then it was gone. >> >>Anyhow, as I was standing there, looking east that evening, with my trusty >>telescope, I saw the same object with the setting sun reflecting off of it. >>Sure enough, as I looked through the telescope, I saw it hanging there, >>about 15 miles or so away. Hoovering, sorta. A flattened blimp. Looking to >>the southeast, I again saw what looked like jets heading straight at it, >>about 4 or 5 this time. They maneuvered under it and then climbed and each >>one fired a missile. The ship started to go up but I saw two flashes. >>Missiles impacting. Then it veered off towards Wrightwood, wobbling left and >>right and then what appeared to be an attempt to climb. Unfortunalely, it >>did not make it. It veered again, passed over Lake Arrowhead, turned, and >>headed SW towards Mt San Antonio. As it passed north of me, it was glowing >>blue, and getting brighter as it descended. It disappeared over the mountain >>ridge west of the cabin and then I heard what sounded like a dull thud and a >>roar. It apparently impacted the ground. A few minutes later I felt the >>cabin shake a little. >> >>The next day, I climbed up the ridge at about 6 AM, and was stopped by some >>Air Force dudes. That was as far as I got. They were everywhere. So I went >>home and just put it aside. Needless to say, the AF Dudes had M-2 carbines >>and all I had was my Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun. NO match!!! >> >>I saw some more outside of Winslow AZ in 1974 at my brothers place (May he >>rest in peace), and before that, I was involved in a cover up at Tinker >>(OKCADS) AFB back in 1966. >> >>Terry R. (name and address available) >-- >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: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:24:43 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Oh, come ON! Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:50:05 -0700 "Terry W. Colvin" writes: >Posted by : Lee Markland > >Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see >are in >reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that >the >Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew >the >B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. > >Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in >conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, >1992 >Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the >B-2 >electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for >those >who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount >to >admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. > >Lee Markland > >At 09:23 PM 11/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >>Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" >> >>Apple Valley is where Victorville, CA is. I was up in Wrightwood CA >at the >>time. I was going to sleep out on the patio at my dad's cabin. It was >about >>830 PM on a summer evening, 1958 [age 12]. I had sighted the same >object >>about a week earlier during the day time heading from the SE to the >NW. I >>thought it was a flat blimp. Then I saw what looked like three or >four jets >>streaking up from Edwards AFB on a direct course. Just as they >approached, >>it took off straight up. WOW. Then it was gone. >> >>Anyhow, as I was standing there, looking east that evening, with my >trusty >>telescope, I saw the same object with the setting sun reflecting off >of it. >>Sure enough, as I looked through the telescope, I saw it hanging >there, >>about 15 miles or so away. Hoovering, sorta. A flattened blimp. >Looking to >>the southeast, I again saw what looked like jets heading straight at >it, >>about 4 or 5 this time. They maneuvered under it and then climbed and >each >>one fired a missile. The ship started to go up but I saw two >flashes. >>Missiles impacting. Then it veered off towards Wrightwood, wobbling >left and >>right and then what appeared to be an attempt to climb. >Unfortunalely, it >>did not make it. It veered again, passed over Lake Arrowhead, turned, >and >>headed SW towards Mt San Antonio. As it passed north of me, it was >glowing >>blue, and getting brighter as it descended. It disappeared over the >mountain >>ridge west of the cabin and then I heard what sounded like a dull >thud and a >>roar. It apparently impacted the ground. A few minutes later I felt >the >>cabin shake a little. >> >>The next day, I climbed up the ridge at about 6 AM, and was stopped >by some >>Air Force dudes. That was as far as I got. They were everywhere. So >I went >>home and just put it aside. Needless to say, the AF Dudes had M-2 >carbines >>and all I had was my Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun. NO match!!! >> >>I saw some more outside of Winslow AZ in 1974 at my brothers place >(May he >>rest in peace), and before that, I was involved in a cover up at >Tinker >>(OKCADS) AFB back in 1966. >> >>Terry R. (name and address available) >-- >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) > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #80 ******************************** 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