From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #92 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, December 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 092 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** FWD: Re: (UASR) Re: Silent Sentry [was New detection possibilities] FWD: (FT) Spread spectrum technology [was Hedy Lamarr's secret torpedoes] Re: Iraq [none] Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: FWD: Re: (UASR) Re: Silent Sentry [was New detection possibilities] Air Force Plants Re: Air Force Plants Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: Plasmas ... strange lights Re: Plasmas ... strange lights *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 23:19:17 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: Re: (UASR) Re: Silent Sentry [was New detection possibilities] On 1998-12-15 Perry FW : > >Via: CE-list > >- - So That Is How You Do It - - > >Researchers in Washington state have found a way to use ordinary FM > >radio waves for radar detection. That has defense contractors very > >interested. > >Such passive detection mode relies on existing FM signals to > >"paint" objects like planes, mountains, and weather systems. The > >researchers have come up with a system that uses PCs and existing > >technology that can be put in the field for $25,000. > >In contrast, the passive system that Lockheed Martin has been > >working on for the Pentagon for the past 15 years remains > >classified. Frits Westra replied: >The Lockheed Martin system seems to be not so classified anymore. > >Check out this URL: > > http://silentsentry.external.lmco.com/proj/nonsecure/sentry/SShome.htm > > >Lockheed Martin officials plan to meet the researchers soon. > >http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/16762.html > >Posted by : "[UASR]> Perry van den Brink" > >Regards, >Frits Westra -- fwestra@hetnet.nl Hello Frits and all, Thanks for the link Frits I was surprised by this Technology... For those without web access I copied the text below: = => Silent Sentry™ Silent Sentry™, Lockheed Martin's new multi-static surveillance system, utilizes commercial radio and television broadcast signals to detect and track airborne objects. This passive system provides real-time updates on all aircraft eight times per second. Because Silent Sentry uses radio signals that exist world-wide, it is a low-cost, low-maintenance, environmentally friendly alternative to conventional radar systems. [Silent Sentry tracking three aircraft over the Chesapeake Bay - picture attached] The Silent Sentry Technology Passive Coherent Technology (PCL) provides Silent Sentry with its detection capability while transmitting no RF energy. PCL utilizes existing commercial radio and broadcast signals as its source of RF energy. The continuous wave nature of commercial broadcast signals and the multi-static nature of Silent Sentry enable highly accurate three-dimensional tracking. These characteristics provide inherent benefits to both government civilian agency and military users. Contact Information For more information concerning Silent Sentry, contact Tom Kuba: Telephone: (301) 240-6668 FAX: (301) 240-6112 Postal address: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems 700 North Frederick Avenue Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Electronic mail : tom.kuba@lmco.com Send mail to tom.kuba@lmco.com with questions or comments about Silent Sentry. = => So when they say: ""Silent Sentry enable highly accurate three-dimensional tracking"" they mean they can see a planes shape ?? Perry van den Brink, owner UASR. - -- 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: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:19:44 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (FT) Spread spectrum technology [was Hedy Lamarr's secret torpedoes] As featured in the New Scientist xmas special issue, the amazing story of Hollywood sex siren Hedy Lamarr, musique concrete composer George Antheil, and their invention of spread spectrum technology - originally designed for radio-guided torpedoes, now used in mobile communication technology. Full details on a website set up by Antheil's son - space applications? < http://www.ncafe.com/chris/pat2/index.html > New Scientist also features articles on the liquid dynamics of Guinness, ghost-related phenomena, and Troy Hurtubise's bear protection suit. Geezers! - -- 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: Sun, 20 Dec 98 19:27:32 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Iraq On 12/17/98 9:43PM, in message <199812180543.AAA11333@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote:. > > > > > > I think we have several hundred of these in inventory, and we might be able to > > convert the nuclear version of the ALCM (AGM-86A/B) to the conventional > > > Boeing Aerospace has kits for converting ALCMs into CALCMs, therefore it may be > a while before we exhaust our reserves. > > There are a couple of hundred or so available for conversion, but it takes a while, and a couple of good strikes like this (which would require the use of 15 B-52s) would exhaust the inventory. They also aren't quite as accurate as Tomahawk, or so I've heard. We also probably used 15-20% of all the tactical Tomahawk ever built on this series of missions alone, and the production line is winding down. > > t > > > future. > > > Clinton has never replaced the missiles we've used previously, and in fact > > > > turned > > > down a contract opportunity to buy Tomahawks for a lower price than Harpoon. > > > > > > > > > Wow! That would have been a great deal.... I'm guessing less than $1.25mil a > > piece. We definitely should have went for that. > > > > Actually, about $500K > > > > > If we > > > continue to pretend that we can rely on "surgical " cruise missiles > > > > exclusively, > > > we're going to run out worldwide. > > > > > > > > > Let's hope our very good friends worldwide (including Saddam) are unaware of > > this. > > They know. It's not that hard to find out. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:07:11 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: [none] If America have used a significant proportion of their cruise missiles and have no chance of producing new ones, that there must be some replacement that is being kept quiet? Would they try and keep the secret ones out of the media by not using them in the Gulf, whilst the secret new ones sat at home, protecting American soil? Gavin Ps Very good to see the B1 finally getting into combat. Is the B2 the only American aircraft now that hasn't seen combat? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:57:55 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Iraq > There are a couple of hundred or so available for conversion, but it takes a >while, and a couple of good strikes like this (which would require the use of 15 >B-52s) would exhaust the inventory. They also aren't quite as accurate as >Tomahawk, or so I've heard. We also probably used 15-20% of all the tactical >Tomahawk ever built on this series of missions alone, and the production line is >winding down. Art: This statement leads me to an obvious question....if we are using these things up at this rate with apparently no replacements on order, what exactly will we be using in future conflicts? Sending bombers with crews in cause we were stupid and ran out or is there another similar type weapon available? Can they keep production open? How many do we have left total at this point? Also, by saying "tactical" I'm assuming you mean non-nuclear capable...so how many of those variety are lying about? not that we'd be wanting to use them... George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:07:37 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Iraq At 10:57 PM 12/20/98 GMT, you wrote: >> > >This statement leads me to an obvious question....if we are using >these things up at this rate with apparently no replacements on order, >what exactly will we be using in future conflicts? According to the "peace & love" govt types now in office, they plan to have the whole world at peace, by the time of the year 2000 elections. So there will not be a need for such toys... The F-22 (All 2 of them) is all we will ever need from then on.! therefore don,t need anymore F-117's nor any need for upgrades. and if you been watching the fleet, we are down to 342 (last time I looked) total ships in the fleet, of all types world wide. No need for the SR-71 so scrap them, U-2's, let them wear out, no need for a replacement, UAV's can see all, tell all.. Sending bombers >with crews in cause we were stupid and ran out or is there another >similar type weapon available? Can they keep production open? How many >do we have left total at this point? > >Also, by saying "tactical" I'm assuming you mean non-nuclear >capable...so how many of those variety are lying about? not that we'd >be wanting to use them... > >George > >George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica >West Allis, WI USA >http://www.netwrx1.com >ICQ #12862186 > > Zz > zZ > |\ z _,,,---,,_ > /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:19:34 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: FWD: Re: (UASR) Re: Silent Sentry [was New detection possibilities] Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > So when they say: ""Silent Sentry enable highly accurate three- > dimensional tracking"" they mean they can see a planes shape ?? > I would imagine they mean that not only can they determine the (lat/long) position, but also the altitude of the target. GregD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:54:35 -0500 From: jeffhclark@juno.com (Jeff Clark) Subject: Air Force Plants Hi, I was wondering, is there a list of US Air Force Plant sites? I mean, everyone knows about Plant 42 in Palmdale. Where are the other 41? Searching around, I have found: Plant 42, Palmdale CA which has sections named Plant 10, Site 6, Site 7, and Site 8 Plant 19, San Diego CA which is where a large part of Atlas rockets are made. Plant ?, Fort Worth TX which is the Lockheed/General Dynamics F-16 / F-111 plant Plant 74, West Palm Beach FL which is a few buildings at Pratt & Whitney's Florida center Are there more? Is every defense contractor assigned a plant number? Jeff Clark ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:47:22 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Air Force Plants At 10:54 PM 12/20/98 -0500, Jeff Clark wrote: >Hi, > >I was wondering, is there a list of US Air Force Plant sites? > >I believe there used to be one at the Boeing Facility at Boeing Field in Seattle. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:03:22 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Iraq > > There are a couple of hundred or so available for conversion, but it takes a > >while, and a couple of good strikes like this (which would require the use of 15 > >B-52s) would exhaust the inventory. They also aren't quite as accurate as > >Tomahawk, or so I've heard. We also probably used 15-20% of all the tactical > >Tomahawk ever built on this series of missions alone, and the production line is > >winding down. > Art: > > This statement leads me to an obvious question....if we are using > these things up at this rate with apparently no replacements on order, > what exactly will we be using in future conflicts? Sending bombers > with crews in cause we were stupid and ran out or is there another > similar type weapon available? Can they keep production open? How many > do we have left total at this point? According the official USAF web site: http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AGM_86B_C_Missiles.html Inventory: AGM-86B, Active force, 1,142; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0. AGM-86C, 239, Block 0, 41; Block I, 198 I suspect we may have expended half or more of the conventional AGM-86C's (CALCMs) but our inventory of nuclear AGM-86B's should still be pretty much intact, so we should be able to convert another thousand or so ALCMs to CALCMs. If we really wanted to, we could produce a whole bunch more from scratch fairly inexpensively. There is no political will to do so however. It seems military procurement is very much out of style in Washington. The way this is going we might have to bomb Hussein with rocks next time around. Sam "gimme more missiles" Kaltsidis > > Also, by saying "tactical" I'm assuming you mean non-nuclear > capable...so how many of those variety are lying about? not that we'd > be wanting to use them... > > George > > George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica > West Allis, WI USA > http://www.netwrx1.com > ICQ #12862186 > > Zz > zZ > |\ z _,,,---,,_ > /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:34:57 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Iraq From various contributors: >> these things up at this rate with apparently no replacements on order, >> what exactly will we be using in future conflicts? Sending bombers >> with crews in cause we were stupid and ran out or is there another >> similar type weapon available? Can they keep production open? How many >> do we have left total at this point? >> >If we really wanted to, we could produce a whole bunch more from scratch fairly >inexpensively. There is no political will to do so however. It seems military >procurement is very much out of style in Washington. The way this is going we >might have to bomb Hussein with rocks next time around. > =====----===-=====-----==-=-=-=-==----====----=-==-=-=-====------=-=----===- =-=-------===== Okay, all this bashing of my hero Slick Wet Willie has flushed me out into the open. Its not fair to selectively decide when he is in charge and making decisions and when he isn't. He is a civilian leader with no apparent interest or familiarity with the daily business of the Pentagon. He probably doesen't know or care about the difference between an F-14 and an F-18. And if he did would it make a difference? Do you really think that as ineffective as most claim him to be he could actually influence all of the civil servants in and out of uniform whose careers are at stake that his views will prevail? Of course not. The Pentagon is the battleship of government entities when it comes to inertia and change (lack?) in direction. Any president serving one or even two terms is but a minor event in the Pentagon time line. Bill spends half his day listening to advisors. This includes military advisors that for all practical purposes tell him what has already transpired. It wasn't just Bill that decided to hit Saddam one more time. It was a combination of the Department of State, the CIA and for sure the Pentagon Chiefs of Staff. No military mission would ever commence without their approval. All Bill does is give the final go or no go. The Joint Chiefs take over at that point. They are the architechs and faciltators of our warfighting efforts. So it may not be on Bill's agenda to build new weapons systems but then you don't hear a major outcry from Congressional reps in districts with large military contractors/bases either. Where is the Pentagon in clamoring for new systems? We know they have a large lobbying force in Congress. So do the Defense Contractors for that matter. We lament the passing of the SR-71 but it has no support from the Pentagon. I strongly suspect if the military is truly using up the supply of cruise missiles it has some form or means to replenish them. But NOT a secret one. (Where did this mass hysteria over secrecy and conspiracy develop???) Its not Bill's job to run around and check to be sure the Pentagon isn't running low on stores. And after all the money bills are generated in the House of Representatives, which the last time we had an impeachment as I recall was in firm control of the Republicans. So if the Pentagon budget analysts and Congress can't get it together, then blame them. As I recall Bill signed a nice check recently to include these things and pay raises for the military. We lament UAV's on this list, partly because they are well funded. And whose choice is that? So Fornicating Bill may not be Father or Husband of the year but he has never hesitated to get in Saddams face and ruin his day. And as the Commander in Chief he has done his job. Choose your enemy wisely. Did Bill kill the SR-71 or the F-14? Does Bill even know the history of why we had the BRAC committee's? Who killed the Navy's A-12 project? Has Bill ever seen an A-6E or an A-10? Is he responsible for the B1B finally identifying a target?? Now if we could just teach him the old ditty "this is my weapon, this is my gun. This one's for fighting and this one's for fun." Ready to take incoming, patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:48:02 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Plasmas ... strange lights Terry W. Colvin writes: >>An extensive literature exists on ball lightning. I wish there was Terry. There are a large body of sightings, but they are largely unorganized. There are also few technical papers, even though there have been some conferences. The field is still largely unexplored by scientists. It definitely has not achieved critical mass in terms of scientific brain power devoted to it yet. The field probably needs a strange breed of scientist anyway. Part astrophysicist, for what it says about the energy of stars (sun), part geologist, for what that says about energy sources from the earth, part meteorologist, for the atmospheric expertise, and part plasma physicist, for what that field says about how to study stable plasma modes driven from the other fields mentioned. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:45:01 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Plasmas ... strange lights Larry, True, the literature is somewhat scanty and not always peer reviewed. The following references were called from several disparate sources during a round of exchanges on the informal Ball Lightning Forum. Terry - ----------------- After rummaging through books, magazines, clippings, etc. I've found a few more ball lightning references. These vary from the academic to the anecdotal. [1] *Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events*, 1977, by Michael A. Persinger and Gyslaine F. Lafrenie(`)re. Nelson-Hall Inc., 325 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60606. ISBN 0-88229-334-6 (hardback), ISBN 0-88229-462-8 (paperback). A general phenomena book using statistical analysis; only Chapters 6 and 8, Unusual and Infrequent Astronomical Events, and Unusual and Infrequent Meteorological Events, resp., have a bearing on BL. [2] *The Nature of Light & Colour in the Open Air*, 1954, by M. Minnaert. Dover Publications Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014. A review and explanation of atmospheric phenomena, "mirages, haloes, shadows, double rainbows...hundreds of other phenomena visible with the naked eye...explained by a famous physicist" as written on the jacket blurb. [3] *Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects* conducted by the University of Colorado under contract to the United States Air Force, Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Director. Research supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Office of Aerospace Research, USAF, under contract F44620-67-C-0035. Daniel S. Gillmor, Editor, 1968, with an introduction by Walter Sullivan of *The New York Times*. My paperback edition is 965 closely printed pages. Discussion of ball lightning and related phenomena occurs on pages 681-682, 723, 729, 732-733, and 735-750. References and Notes Section 7: Surveys of ball lightning are: 1. Preliminary Report on Ball Lightning, J. Rand McNally, Jr.; Second Annual Meeting, Div. of Plasma Phys., Amer. Phys. Soc., Gatlinburg, Tenn. Nov 2-5,1960. 2. Ball Lightning Characteristics, Warren D. Rayle: NASA TN D-3188, January,1966. 3. Ball Lightning, James Dale Barry: Master's Thesis, California State College, 1966. 4. Ball Lightning, J. Dale Barry: Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, vol. 29, p. 1095, 1967. Bibliographies of earlier ball lightning work: 5. Ball Lightning Bibliography 1950-1960: Science and Technology Division, Library of Congress, 1961. 6. Ball Lightning (A Collection of Soviet Research in English Translation), Donald J. Ritchie (editor): Consultants Bureau, New York, 1961. A theory based on standing microwave patterns is given in: 7. The Nature of Ball Lightning, P. L. Kapitsa: in Ball Lightning, Consultants Bureau, N.Y., 1961 (Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, vol. 101, p. 245, 1955). 8. Ball Lightning, David Finkelstein and Julio Rubinstein: Physical Review, vol. 135, p. A390, 1964. 9. A Theory of Ball Lightning, Martin A. Uman and Carl W. Helstrom: Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 71, p. 1975, 1966. Theories based on magnetic containment are given by: 10. Ball Lightning and Self-Containing Electromagnetic Fields, Philip O. Johnson: American Journal of Physics, vol. 33, p. 119, 1965. 11. Ball Lightning, E. R. Wooding: Nature, vol. 199, p. 272, 1963. 12. On Magnetohydrodynamical Equilibrium Configurations, V. D. Shafranov: in Ball Lightning, Consultants Bureau, N.Y., 1961 (Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, vol. 37, p. 224, 1959. 13. Magneto-Vortex Rings, Yu. P. Ladikov: in Ball Lightning, Consultants Bureau, N.Y., 1961 (Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, Mekhanika i Mashinostroyenie, No. 4, p. 7, July-Aug., 1960). A theory of ball lightning as a miniature thundercloud is given in: 14. Ball Lightning as a Physical Phenomenon, E. L. Hill: Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 65, p. 1947, 1960. The creation of ball lightning by man-made devices is discussed in: 15. Ball Lightning and Plasmoids, Paul A. Silberg: Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 67, p. 4941, 1962. Ball lightning as burning hydrocarbon is discussed in: 16. Laboratory Ball Lightning, J. Dale Barry, Journal of Terrestrial Physics, vol. 30, p. 313. 1968. A skeptical view of ball lightning theories is given in: 17. Attempted Explanations of Ball Lightning, Edmond M. Dewan: Physical Sciences Research Paper #67, AFCRL-64-927, November, 1964. An elementary review of ball lightning is: 18. Ball Lightning, H. W. Lewis: Scientific American, March, 1963. The first eyewitness account presented in this review is found in: 19. The Nature of Ball Lightning, G. I. Kogan-Beletskii: in Ball Lightning, Consultants Bureau, N.Y., 1961 (Prioroda, No. 4, p. 71, 1957). Eyewitness accounts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and many others even more incredible are found in: 20. Eyewitness Accounts of Kugelblitz, Edmond M. Dewan: CRD-25, (Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories) March, 1964. Account 4 concerns a photograph taken by Robert J. Childerhose of the RCAF. The description is found in the book by Klass, which is cited below. The strange case in St. Petersburg, Florida is discussed in: 21. Theory of the Lightning Balls and Its Application to the Atmospheric Phenomenon Called "Flying Saucers," Carl Benedicks: Arkiv for Geofysik (Sweden), vol. 2, p. 1, 1954. [4] *Book of the Damned*, 1919 and 1940, by Charles Hoy Fort. 1. pp. 273-274: In *Nature*, 37-187, and *L'Astronomie*, 1887-76, we are told that an object, described as "a large ball of fire," was seen to rise from the sea, near Cape Race. We are told that it rose to a height of fifty feet, and then advanced close to the ship, then moving away, remaining visible about five minutes. The supposition in *Nature* is that it was "ball lightning," but Flammarion, *Thunder and Lightning*, p. 68, says that it was enormous. Details in the American *Meteorological Journal*, 6-443--Nov. 12, 1887--British steamer *Siberian*--that the object had moved "against the wind" before retreating--that Captain Moore said that at about the same place he had seen such appearances before. *Report of the British Association*, 1861-30: That, upon June 18, 1845, according to the *Malta Times*, from the brig *Victoria*, about 900 miles east of Adalia, Asia Minor (36 degrees, 40 minutes, 56 seconds, N. Lat.: 13 degrees, 44 minutes, 36 seconds E. Long.), three luminous bodies were seen to issue from the sea, at about half a mile from the vessel. They were visible about ten minutes. 2. "As to what ball lightning is, we have not yet begun to make intelligent guesses." (*Monthly Weather Review*, 34-17.) In general, it seems to me that when we encounter the opposition [to] "ball lightning" we should pay little attention, but confine ourselves to guesses that are at least intelligent, that stand phantom-like in our way. We note here that in some of our acceptances upon intelligence we should more clearly have pointed out that they were upon the intelligent as opposed to the instinctive. In the *Monthly Weather Review*, 33-409, there is an account of "ball lightning" that struck a tree. It made a dent such as a falling object would make. Some other time I shall collect instances of "ball lightning," to express that they are instances of objects that have fallen from the sky, luminously, exploding terrifically. So bewildered is the old orthodoxy by these phenomena that many scientists have either denied "ball lightning" or have considered it very doubtful. I refer to Dr. Sestier's list of one hundred and fifty instances, which he considered authentic. [5] *Flying Saucer Review*, London, United Kingdom. 1. Vol. 10, No. 5, September-October 1964, pp. 14-15, "A Note on Fireballs." 2. Vol. 14, No. 4, July-August 1968, p. 35, "All Fireballs?". 3. Vol. 15, No. 1, January-February 1969, pp. 25-26, "UFOs And Ball Lightning." 4. Vol. 18, No. 3, May-June 1972, pp. 23-24, "Some Thoughts on 'Thinking Globes'". I quote from the introductory paragraph of item [5]1.: Readers of Dr. Menzel's latest book, *The World of Flying Saucers* will recall that the author attempted to explain one mystery (UFOs) in terms of another (fireballs). It would seem that the latter subject has attracted as little scientific attention as the former. Indeed, if one takes a close look at the history of fireballs one is almost persuaded that their behaviour resembles that of the Foo Fighters of the 1939-1945 war. Even Dr. Menzel had to admit that scientists knew very little about fireballs, though he was prepared to invoke them as conventionalisations for flying saucers. The saucer student could equally well reverse the process and claim that what was known as a fireball in the past was in fact the flying saucer of today. The 21 references in [3] above are the more academic while all else is anecdotal. While not exhaustive these references are some of the more unknown to most students of ball lightning. I'm sure other references exist in the specialty (a.k.a. fringe science) magazines; however, little to no indexing makes it difficult to find ball lightning "stuff" when mixed in with luminous, atmospheric, meteorological, and UFO phenomena. That will be the focus of my next search. Respectfully, Terry Terry W. Colvin or Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." -Mark Twain - ----------------- Larry Smith wrote: > > Terry W. Colvin writes: > >>An extensive literature exists on ball lightning. > > I wish there was Terry. > > There are a large body of sightings, but they are largely unorganized. > > There are also few technical papers, even though there have been some > conferences. The field is still largely unexplored by scientists. > > It definitely has not achieved critical mass in terms of scientific > brain power devoted to it yet. > > The field probably needs a strange breed of scientist anyway. Part > astrophysicist, for what it says about the energy of stars (sun), > part geologist, for what that says about energy sources from the > earth, part meteorologist, for the atmospheric expertise, and part > plasma physicist, for what that field says about how to study stable > plasma modes driven from the other fields mentioned. > > Larry - -- 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 #92 ******************************** 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