From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #84 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 Saturday, December 5 1998 Volume 07 : Number 084 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: guns v. missiles Re: High Flying Aircraft gathering vallejo ca Re: Guns v. Missiles II Re: guns v. missiles F-22 costs Re: F-22 costs Re: F-22 costs SR-71 photo question Re: SR-71 photo question Re: SR-71 photo question Re: SR-71 photo question Re: F-22 costs Re: F-22 costs Re: Origin of term "skunk works" Re: SR-71 photo question Re: Origin of term "skunk works" Re: SR-71 photo question FWD: (UASR) Report on the crash of a forcefield protected Lear Jet *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:14:31 +0100 From: Urban Fredriksson Subject: Re: guns v. missiles betnal@ns.net wrote: > Bringin this discusion back on charter, the F-22 may get a new gun, but that >seems to be more for stealth reasons. How? Stealthed while firing too? > It's interesting that neither the USN or >the USMC (who do CAS, mostly) want an internal gun on their JSF versions. What they don't want the most is added weight from even the absence of gun if one is fitted to the USAF version. The USMC does want the capability to fit a gun sometimes (as a range of 3000 m against ground targets is mentioned), my guess is they wouldn't mind an internal one if there wasn't a weight problem. Note that the USAF wants the gun very much for shooting down aircraft with, not CAS. - -- Urban Fredriksson griffon@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:31:08 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft I saw a film on the SR-71 last night, and the requirements were: Minimum continous speed above 3,000 miles per hour. Minimum operational cieling above 80,000 feet. Not bad for a craft designed in the late 50's, early 60's. I imagine they exceed that with something within ten years after that. Seeing how technology bounced from WWII to the SR-71, it would not be unreasonable to exceed 150,000 feet by the mid 70's. And for those who think they'd hit a satellite, satellites are roughly five times higher than this. The only way an aeroplane is giong to hit on eis to strap it to a Saturn V launch vihicle and wait ten minutes. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:25:39 -0600 Wayne Busse writes: >Hi Kurt > >I didn't know the numbers were preceded by a query. >In that case, it sounds possible, although for an aircraft, that >would be sub-orbital and more of a trajectory than a >controlled flight. > >Would fit with "Black Colt" though, if it ever got beyond the >proposal stage. > >Thanks for the mail, >Wayne > > > >>I have been flying awhile too. Though people may not normally call >out >>altitude in this manner, to clarify what was said: >> >>"What is your altitude?" >>"One Four Zero Five Hundred Feet" >> >>A heading was not asked during the time I listened, and instrument >>readings were asked prior to this. >> >>Kurt > >Wayne Busse >http://www.sky.net/~wings >wings@sky.net >wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:40:45 -0800 (PST) From: bryan stover jr Subject: gathering vallejo ca I imagine most of the old skunk works boys im familouar with have retired or died off but Im looking for those who attended the gatering deal by the masonery in vallejo ca in the early 60 s best recolection was 1962 july 18-19 vallejo ca at washington playground Im looking to find those skunk work boys who were there and trying to find out who within the masonery started or were the officials of this event and the idenitity of the government agents who came in and classified the event in qauestion they were discussing the sr71 and the other project came up its real name is aurora borialis as I got to name it probably if you used a super heated control rod you could probably get the desired tempretures for seperating oxygen and hydrogen from water for collection into seperate and collection then it has to be concentrated into liquid form for both then reintroduced back together as a thrusting agent of course I believe the only place these metals can be blended together is in outer space for the control rods hope to hear from you soon == _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 98 20:36:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Guns v. Missiles II Since this has gotten way off-charter for this list, I'll be corresponding with Jim privately on this... Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 98 20:53:37 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: guns v. missiles On 12/4/98 3:14AM, in message <3667C417.60D3@canit.se>, Urban Fredriksson wrote: > > > How? Stealthed while firing too? From the documentation I've seen, the muzzle extends out during firing, but normally is retracted. This is similar to how AIM-9s will be employed. > > > What they don't want the most is added weight from even the > absence of gun if one is fitted to the USAF version. The USMC > does want the capability to fit a gun sometimes (as a range of > 3000 m against ground targets is mentioned), my guess is they > wouldn't mind an internal one if there wasn't a weight problem. > Note that the USAF wants the gun very much for shooting down > aircraft with, not CAS. USN and USMC do not even want the fittings or provision for an internal gun for weight and space reasons (including internal structure. USMC favors an add-on external gun ala' the Harrier. Although USAF doesn't believe in the CAS mission, they do believe in "Battlefield Air Interdiction" (which is not the same as CAS), for which a gun would be very, very effective. Regarding air-to-air, USAF is still very sensitive about the F-22. They don't want JSF to be too capable in this arena, lest it threaten the F-22's funding. This is the reason they've resisted any dramatic improvements to AIM-120's range or end-game performance until recently. They've publicly stated that the F-22 makes such improvements to the missile unnecessary. It's openly speculated that they were worried that a more effective air-to-air missile might be taken by some as lowering the need for the Raptor so they've resisted it (this is also why they've been lukewarm about AIM-9X). Now that it seems that Europe could go ahead with Meteor or FMRAAM, which would be markedly superior to current AIM-120s, USAF is rethinking an enhanced AIM-120. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 98 22:00:17 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: F-22 costs Lockheed recently said that the flyaway cost of the F-22 is $83 million in current dollars (keep in mind that different organizations even define flyaway costs differently). Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:59:46 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-22 costs Flyaway cost is a irrevelant cost. It does not even include the cost of fuel to fly it. There are four types of cost: flyaway, weapon system, procurement, and program cost. Only program cost reflects the true cost to the taxpayer. Flyaway = airframe + engine + avionics Weapon system = flyaway + support + advanced procurement Procurement = weapon system = initial spares Program = RDT&E + military construction The Air Force was admitting to a program unit acquisition cost )PAUC) of $197 million (then year dollars) before Lockheed Martin's recent statement that it would breach that price if the Air Force did not buy more C-130Js. In other words, if the Air Force buys 339 of the F-22s, which I believe it will not, and it continues to excalate at the same rate as Air Force programs have in the past, you can expect to pay somewhere between a quarter to one-third of a billion per F-22 for an airplane that has never passed the scientific method for any of its claims except supercruise. Jim Stevenson >Lockheed recently said that the flyaway cost of the F-22 is $83 million in >current >dollars (keep in mind that different organizations even define flyaway costs >differently). > > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:58:09 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F-22 costs >Lockheed recently said that the flyaway cost >of the F-22 is $83 million in current dollars >(keep in mind that different organizations >even define flyaway costs differently). Do you have to pay up front? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 20:42:03 -0600 From: Dave Bethke Subject: SR-71 photo question I came across this photo in a post to the rec.aviation.misc news group. The photographer refers to it as "SR-71 with scramjet NASA". I'm hoping someone here can give me a few more details on this strange looking configuration. The picture is at http://www.airshowaction.com/edwrds98/aedw14.jpg. - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:09:13 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Dave Bethke wrote: > I came across this photo in a post to the rec.aviation.misc news > group. The photographer refers to it as "SR-71 with scramjet NASA". I'm > hoping someone here can give me a few more details on this strange > looking configuration. The picture is at > http://www.airshowaction.com/edwrds98/aedw14.jpg. This is probably something to do with the linear aerospike project, see http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/SR71/lasre.html - - James. - -- James Morris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question > I came across this photo in a post to the rec.aviation.misc news > group. The photographer refers to it as "SR-71 with scramjet NASA". I'm > hoping someone here can give me a few more details on this strange > looking configuration. The picture is at > http://www.airshowaction.com/edwrds98/aedw14.jpg. Yes, this is definitely the linear aerospike testbed, which was recently cancelled before it ever flew with the linear aerospike engine mounted on it. If I remember correctly there was a similar picture in a recent issue of AvWeek. > > -- > Dave Bethke Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 98 01:54:20 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question On 12/5/98 1:24PM, in message <199812052124.QAA03947@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > Yes, this is definitely the linear aerospike testbed, which was recently > cancelled before it ever flew with the linear aerospike engine mounted on it. > > If I remember correctly there was a similar picture in a recent issue of AvWeek. > > > > > -- > > Dave Bethke Actually, NASA's SR flew a number of times with the Linear Aerospike mounted, and did some "cold" firings at much lower than design thrust. Perisitent propellant leaks and other problems kept postponing the hot firings until the point where the project was canceled. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 98 02:01:59 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-22 costs On 12/4/98 2:58PM, in message <199812042258.OAA361698@pdxcs266.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > > Do you have to pay up front? Actually, on delivery, but sometimnes progress payments are made > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 98 02:18:08 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-22 costs I agree with Jim that in most cases flyaway costs are irrelevant, or at least they are until you've bought so Many of the things beyond the initial planned program that all your infrastructures's in place and you're only paying incremental costs. The two US planes in recent memory that qualify for that are the F-4 and F-16. I threw in that number because it was extremely recent, to relate it to the $35 million previously mentioned and also to relate it to the cost of Eurofighter and Rafale. It's funny that even with the same term "flyaway costs", you still have to pin them down. I believe that in the case of the F-4, the USAF defined "flyaway" exactly as Jim described, while to the USN "flyaway" meant the initial tank of gas and four AIM-7s. Jim also raises a good point about the F-22's proof of its claims. This is a good illustration of how incredibly slow testing is nowadays because no one wants to take any risks 'cause it might look bad. Actually, as long as the crew isn't hurt, going out and crashing a few (not deliberately) is actually not that bad a thing because you've tested to the limits and you've got data on how the aircraft behaves in really abnormal conditions, which usually will occur within weeks of entering service. We tend to make too many plans before we do the testing. The F-22 is moving really slow, until you compare it to EF2000, Rafale and (heaven help us) Dark Star and Global Hawk. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 02:47:09 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Origin of term "skunk works" On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:27:13 -0600, you wrote: >Hi, >I found your name attached to a Skunk Works mailing list and thought you >might be able to help me out with a question. > >I'd like to find out the origin for the term "skunk works." I have several >business and military definitions, but so far no idea about how the phrase >came into use. > >Thanks in advance for any help you might provide. >Susan Susan: I'm not the best person to ask, but I'll repost your request onto the skunk works list and I'm sure someone will help you out. I'll mention that they should write to you DIRECTLY since I am not sure your on the list or digest. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:15:28 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question > On 12/5/98 1:24PM, in message <199812052124.QAA03947@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam > Kaltsidis wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, this is definitely the linear aerospike testbed, which was recently > > cancelled before it ever flew with the linear aerospike engine mounted on it. > > > > If I remember correctly there was a similar picture in a recent issue of AvWeek. > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dave Bethke > > Actually, NASA's SR flew a number of times with the Linear Aerospike mounted, > and did some "cold" firings at much lower than design thrust. Perisitent > propellant leaks and other problems kept postponing the hot firings until the > point where the project was canceled. > You are absolutely correct. I stand corrected. My apologies to everyone. > > Art > > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 03:31:48 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Origin of term "skunk works" Copy mailed to Susan as well.. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:27:13 -0600, you wrote: > >>Hi, >>I found your name attached to a Skunk Works mailing list and thought you >>might be able to help me out with a question. >> >>I'd like to find out the origin for the term "skunk works." I have several >>business and military definitions, but so far no idea about how the phrase >>came into use. >> >>Thanks in advance for any help you might provide. >>Susan >Susan: > According to Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" when Kelly Johnson created the development team at Lockheed there was no room in the production bldg's, so a large circus tent was put up and used . the area selected for it was close to the chem/plastics industries and the smell from the outside caused the folks to start refering to the tent as the Skunk works after Al Capps comic strip ( Lil Abner ) IE: Lonesome Polecat's site for making Kickapoo Joy juice. I,m not sure how old you are but if you are old enough to remember the comic strip. They used almost everything in the "still" to make the Joy juice and it was depicted as having a strong stench, and was something to stay away from... The Offical explantion for the name can be found at: http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/html/body.html#A18 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 98 04:08:21 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question Sam, You don't need to apologize. This is all an information sharing adventure. LASRE didn't really get all the publicity it should have. Besides, you check your spelling a lot better than I do (how in heck did I come up with "Perisitent "?). Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 22:11:31 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR) Report on the crash of a forcefield protected Lear Jet Posted by : Lee Markland A personal report by Lee Markland. At approximately 11:00 P.M. On Dec 13, 1994 there was a major 8 state power blackout. The source of the blackout was announced on the news as Los Banos, Power Station, 75 Miles from Fresno, CA. 14 hours later, the news media came back on and issued a correction, it said the site of the overload (drain) was in some remote, unnamed, part of Idaho. What happened in the intervening time. At 11:47 a.m. on December 14, 1994 a Lear Jet, operated by Phoenix Air, from Cartersville, Ga, which according to the authorities was leased by the U.S. Air Force for use in maneuvers with the California NG F16's stationed out of Fresno Airport, crashed on Olive Street in Fresno. Olive Street is the extended base leg of Fresno, Airport. According to the official releases the craft was carrying highly classified electronic equipment, which "would simulate the different radar targets of various Soviet aircraft" and the CA NG pilots were trying to intercept it. Immediately after the crash, National Guard troops (obviously already alerted) descended on the crash scene, cordoned it off, and evacuated everyone within a 2 block area. One witness said he saw the aircraft coming down the street and thought it was a car (meaning moving at the rate of 25 - 35 mph), this is before the craft crossed the intersection of Chesnut and Olive. A Major intersection with a metal signal pole. (San Jose Mercury News, Dec 15, 1994) I had, not too much sooner, just finished reading Ether Technology, a rational approach to gravity control, Rho Sigma, and Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a new propulsion methodology, ed Thomas Valone. I am also retired Air Force, and an ex Air Traffic Controller, so the light bulb flashed. I don't claim to know all things, but the last ten 10 years of my Air Force Career were in Logistics, Transportation and planning. I know for a fact that there is no legal basis, and in fact it is illegal, to contract with "civilians" to perform with active military in "maneuvers". I also know that the military has its own in house resources, to fulfill such requirements. The only civilian aircraft that can legally be incorporated into or used by the military is the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and that took an act of congress. I also know that the target on the scope of a radar blip is a dot, and one can not determine from the return the type of aircraft, only its size - maybe. Phoenix Air is just another CIA operated airline and hence the Air Force and CIA were obviously in training. In less than a year (1998) more than 20 fighter aircraft have crashed - an unusually high number. Recently an A-6 out of Aviano, Italy, without suffering any structural damage, knocked down the massive cable, carrying a gondola in Italy. A feat that defies the laws of physics. On the 50th Anniversary of the Air Force an F-117A, in a high G maneuver lost its tail and crashed. The Air Force naturally had a cover story. The F117 is made of composites and cannot take the stress of evasive maneuvers and high G's in a normal operating environment. The F117A flew successive missions over Baghdad, experiencing the heaviest ack ack barrage ever thrown up, even greater than WWII without so much as a scratch on any of the craft. The now common video footage of the Gulf War and the Nighthawk of this raid reveal to the perceptive, some unusual qualities. 1. The pinpoint air strikes require two aircraft, one for targeting and LASING and the other launching the missile. The targeting aircraft virtually hovers over target, as there is no change at all in the field of vision, no change in perception, no indication of motion or movement. The targeting craft is motionless. The targeting craft is not a drone, (which would move) or a satellite, or anything else as a number of clips they have left in the conversations between the targeting and strike aircraft and you can hear the requests, confirmations and instructions exchanged between the two pilots. Hypothesis: The Armed Forces, through DARPA, have developed a technology that in all probability utilizes electrogravitics or some form of electronic radar shielding and force fielding. To grasp that one needs to review Ether Technology by Rolf Schaffranke (Rho Sigma). I am tempted to test copyright and post a partial quote of this interesting book. On page 25 he discusses A Dramatic Report, by Mason Rose, Ph,D., President University for Social Research. The report is on the shelves of the American Technical Library, the Pacific Aeronautical Library in Los Angeles, 7660 Beverly Boulevard, datelined Apr 8, 1952, its author is listed as Mason Rose, Phd, formerly President of the now defunct, "University for Social Research" in California. It starts as follows: A Simplified Explanation of the Application of the Biefeld-Brown Effect to the Solution of the Problem of Space Navigation. The scientist and layman both encounter a primary difficulty in understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect and its relation to the solution of the flying saucer mystery. THE DIFFICULTY LIES IN THE FACT THAT SCIENTIST AND LAYMAN ALIKE THINK IN ELECTROMAGNETIC CONCEPTS, WHEREAS THE BEFIELD-BROWN EFFECT RELATES TO ELECTRO-GRAVITATION. An interesting chapter, for the Newtonians, is The Gravitational Constant is not a Constant at all. Dr Erwin J. Saxl. Side effects of this technology include: 1. Radar invisibility 2. Force fielding 3. Matter snatch 4. A field in proximity to a major power transmitting station will overload and short out that stations equipment. As regards Radar Invisibility. I suggest that this is purpose to which the CIA were operating their aircraft in "maneuvers" with the California Air National Guard. Not to mimic radar signatures of Soviet aircraft (a proposition at once false). As regards Force Fielding, I suggest that the events noted, reported (on TV and in the papers and divulged through my own personal investigation) are proof that the Lear Jet was protected by a force field. As regards Matter Snatch - I found in my personal investigation examples of that also. As regards overload a power transmitting station. I recall the 8 state blackout, its original siting at Los Banos, and the public announcement, after the crash, that it was in remote Idaho. In January through May of 1975 I made weekly trips to Fresno, to visit my companion who was on temporary assignment there, working for the State of California, Office of Emergency Services. I stopped on every trip at Los Banos, at a truck stop for coffee and a sandwich and had conversations with the help and locals therein. They confirmed that indeed the power failure was at Los Banos. A waitress said her husband had a hell of a time because he was on duty at the time. Los Banos is only a truck stop and the power transmitting station - a massive array of towers and transformers. Force fielding: The Lear Jet came down the extended base leg of Fresno (Olive street) losing altitude. It apparently could not grasp, at its control surfaces, the air necessary to make a turn into final. Which would be expected if its "force field" was engaged. The fact is that the CIA aircraft could not execute a turn onto final approach from base leg. If it had a hydraulic problem, which I doubt, it could have accelerated and either would have crashed in a less populated area or slowly maneuvered for an extended final approach. But the craft was losing momentum, and airspeed. The papers made a hero out of the pilot, because "he avoided" an elementary school. Not the case, the elementary school is offset from extended base leg (Olive Street). The Lear Jet, crossed (at ground level) but without being able to touch down, despite its forward motion of less than 35 mph a major intersection - - Chesnut Street. On the far corner (relative to the craft's direction of travel) of Olive and Chesnut is a large metal signal pole. The right wing bent that pole at a 90 degree angle, and the street sign was snatched off the pole and drug under the craft, gouging a long narrow gash in Olive street (still no touch down, no rubber on the surface of the road). There is a another street past Chesnut. Recreation Ave. On the right hand side between Chesnut and Recreation Ave were three telephone poles. One of which was at Recreation and Olive. The right wing of the Lear Jet then chopped down two telephone poles. It then (simultaneously) moved a one ton landscaping boulder located in front of a Real Estate Brokerage close to Recreation Street, whilst stripping the roofing tile off the building a distance of 14 ft (very wide wing, eh), speed of the craft at the time was approx. 25 mph. When the right wing came in contact with the third telephone pole (it still had not lost its wing, violating four times the laws of physics) it apparently grounded out. As the third pole on the corner of Olive and Recreation, unlike the other two poles, has traveling down its length, and under ground, cable and conduit. I suggest that the field came in contact with the electrical field traveling down the telephone power pole. At that moment, the craft apparently lost its shielding, wheeled right and plowed into an apartment complex, on the right and other side of Recreation Ave. destroying one apartment and damaging several others. There was then a fire. The local TV Station in February 1995, produced a one hour special (which I video taped) Mayday over Fresno. It had the usual homilies for the departed, but the Fire Chief, escorted the wife of the pilot over the scene and she too was totally amazed that this aircraft could do all of this damage, without losing its wing. I'm not for a benefit of Ether Technology or Electrogravitics (I don't believe in the Ether and think that Rolfe is wrong here) is that with force fielding, any object of less weight (mass if you wish) that comes into contact with the craft will be deflected, any object with more mass, will deflect the craft. The Lear Jet obviously could "decapitate" these poles, and bend the signal pole, because it was "force fielded" and had inertial mass behind it. I of course can't "prove" any of this stuff, except to offer up the newspaper reports, the video tape and the results of my own investigation. If the obvious is too hard to swallow, for those indoctrinated in current physics or who believe in the esoteric and metaphysical like Einstein's relativities. So be it. I have not exaggerated nor misstated anything. And have typed this with the San Jose Mercury news in front of me, the video tape playing and from my own notes. Make of it what you wish. As far as I'm concerned it is very obvious that the DoD has incorporated (retrofitted) into its airframes some portion of this advanced technology, if not the propulsion then enough to make the craft virtually invisible and invincible to ground or missile fire. Perhaps that is why General Horner, so emphatically stated, that there is no known defense to the F117A. A very strong statement to make, if all we are talking about is radar invisibility. No known defense, means also ack ack, fighter, missile or any other munitions thrown into the air. - -- 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) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #84 ******************************** 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