From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #6 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, January 25 1999 Volume 08 : Number 006 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: WW II German bomb project Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and er..uh..Skunk Works German Nukes and Jets German Secret Aircraft Projects Re: German Atomic Bomb and other items SR-71 Status EA-6B Pilots on trial in Italy Re: German Secret Aircraft Projects Long-Classified SR-71/U-2 Film FINALLY Available FBI Records on the SR-71 Aircraft Technical Reports on SR-71, U-2, etc. Subject: [MilCom] Additional "Silent Sentry" info Re: New ballistic missile defense system *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 02:05:00 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: WW II German bomb project At 10:04 PM 1/22/99 +0100, you wrote: >>>> Thanks Allan, the links are just great! About one year ago I bought the book "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rodes from the Area51-Research- Center bookstore. A tremendous book, but I haven't read it through yet (it's not easy for a German to read such a book in it's original language - but I finished "Skunk Works" from Ben Rich within a few days - Ok, you would finish it in a few hours). Does anybody has more information about Germany's secret airplane projects in the last days of WWII? In my eyes this is by far more interesting to discuss. Stefan- Rhodes book on the Atomic Bomb is possibly the best. He has recently written a book on the Hydrogen Bomb entitled "Dark Sun, the Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" Stefan, try reading a German book when you only speak English! Hope for lots of pictures. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:48:51 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and er..uh..Skunk Works There is actually a mild relevance to the thrust of this thread. The nuclear weapons and delivery systems programs of Germany and Japan during have been extensively documented. The published analyses, like most of what we read about the prospects for the capabilities of third-world and rogue nations, focus mainly on analogs of our own systems - that is, fission devices and delivery by aircraft and missiles. That may be problematic. There is some evidence that both Germany and Japan also explored the use of less sophisticated "atomic" devices, ranging from scattering low-grade materials to enriched materials scattered by conventional explosives. They never produced enough materials to do more than speculate, and we may never know if they would have used such weapons. They certainly could have denied us the use of critical sites, such as Iwo Jima's and Saipan's airfields or harbors like Antwerp. Both countries had the ability to deliver such weapons by aircraft or submarine, especially if one assumes that the crews were not planning on a return trip. Carrying this back to the ballistic missiles and anti-missile discussion. It is not at all clear to me why we are so focussed on conventional missile attacks. The great virtues of a foe who depends on ballistic missiles and nuclear explosives are that 1)you know who they are; 2) you know they are putting a big chunk of their resources into it; 3) you know they are committed to tactics we more or less understand; and 4)you know where to retaliate if they commit the ultimate error of using them. Worry about the folks who are too poor, too dumb, or too smart to play in that league. We may not even get a nation eager to take credit for the event ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:48:36 -0500 (EST) From: Doug Geddes Subject: German Nukes and Jets Hi Guys and gals, My first time to jump in here, from the home of all those high altitude record breakers (according to the idiots at NASA. Didn't fool you guys though. We Canadians just yawned and said yep, we're pretty good I see. :=) At least we know what aircraft are made where. To the bomb, Germany itself had neither the resources or the expertise to build one, however, there was the material and expertise available in the countries that they had annexed. Luckily the Brits smuggled some of those scientists out and they found there way to the Manhattan project and the Brits bombed some of the facilities of importance such as heavy water suppliers. Germany was developing an ICBM and a long range heavy bomber at the end of the war that could have reached NY and I am sure they did not intend to fly across the Atlantic with 500 lbs of explosives. You might as well have sent leaflets, or if NY was the target, cocaine and syringes. Damage would have been greater. As to jets, the British jet development was almost on a par with the Germans except that they had no need to enter production as there was no German target that they could not run down and catch with their fighters and Mosquitos. The Germans needed something to outrun allied fighters and to catch Mosquito bombers that could outrun any allied or Axis fighter (US bombers could not outrun their shadow and carried puny bomb loads - even the Mosquito could carry a heaver bomb load than most US bombers and at twice the speed - the jets and rockets helped with that task of catching the odd Mosquito. The British continued to refine their jets (Gloster Meteor) and engines to improve thrust and range, rather than rush into production. The Americans had not even heard of a jet at that time, in fact they hadn't even heard of a piston engine with any kind of HP until the Brits leant them a Roll's Merlin to copy, which they did and came out with the Alison used on the P51's, etc. Then the Brits gave the Yanks a few Meteors to take apart and copy and with in a year, the Americans had there first jets - though primitive they were. It took two more years before the Panther and Shooting Star equaled the 1942-43 Meteors's performance. And don't forget, the Yanks never did well with rockets after the war, even with Werner Von Brown, the Russians were way ahead and had and still do have more powerful rockets. All larger US rockets were exploding on the launch pad or were going off track right after launch. It was only when Canada canceled its Avro Arrow program, the most advanced interceptor aircraft ever built, and NASA came to Canada and hired dozens of Avro engineers and made one head of Engineering for NASA, that the new team finally got the rockets to work and then ran the moon missions. Bet most of you don't realize that the computer in the Lunar lander, the one that was capable of getting the Appolo 13 craft home was designed and built in Canada. Canada got the contract because the US could not design a computer small and powerful enough for the job. Of course we would aLL LAUGH NOW AT HOW PRIMITIVE THAT COMPUTER REALLY WAS. Anyways, just a little history from a Canadian perspective. Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:53:21 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: German Secret Aircraft Projects Stefan Dornbusch asked about books on secret aircraft projects. I recently obtained two books on just this topic. The first is, I believe, available in both the USA and UK. I think that I obtained my copy in London. This book is "Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945" by Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer, Midland Publishing Limited. (ISBN 1 85780 052 4) This book is a handsome, large format, glossy paper book. Its most impressive aspect is the full color paintings of how the aircraft would have looked. There are also numerous three-aspect line drawings of the aircraft being described. The text is clear and well-written. The post-war Allied development of some the German projects is discussed and illustrated. The other is probably only available in Britain. It is "Last Talons of the Eagle" by Gary Hyland and Anton Gill, Headline Book Publishing, 1998, London. (ISBN 0 7472 2156 1.) This book only slightly overlaps the first. For me, the most amazing thing discussed is the fact that the Germans were far ahead of the allies in the development of helicopters. In addition to the predictable (but excellent) discussion of the development of jet and rocket fighters, there is a very complete treatment of the volksjaeger (people's fighter) project. As the war went on, the Germans evidently got wilder and weirder. Fascinating stuff. If these books are unavailable outside the UK, I suggest ordering over the Internet. Your credit card payment avoids the problem of currency conversion. I have been very satisfied with the service of Amazon.co.uk which is the British affiliate of the American.com. The address is, of course, http://amazon.co.uk. Other online British booksellers are: The Bookpl@ce at http://www.thebookplace.com/ Heffers at http://www.heffers.co.uk/ The Internet Bookshop at http://www.bookshop.co.uk/hme/hmepge.asp Waterstone's at http://www.waterstone.co.uk/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:06:58 -0500 From: "James J. Bjaloncik" Subject: Re: German Atomic Bomb and other items Gentlemen: I recommend the book "Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb" by Thomas Powers (1993, Knopf Publishing) as the definitive history on the German bomb. He points out quite clearly that Heisenberg's research lead Germany down a blind alley as far as an atomic bomb was concerned. While he loved his country, WH was no Nazi and had no intention of placing such a weapon in Hitler's hands. Other histories that I've read (Robert Jungk's "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns" [HBJ 1958, now out of print] and both of Richard Rhodes' books) have basically pointed in that same direction. Dutch physicist Sam Goudsmit, who was part of Colonel Boris Pash' ALSOS mission into Europe to determine the extent of the German a-bomb project, stated in a post-war memoir "The conclusions were unmistakable. The evidence at hand proved definitely that Germany had no atomic bomb and was not likely to have one in any reasonable form" (Rhodes, The Making...Bomb, p.607). This and other books have pointed out that the heavy water approach could have made a semi-decent nuclear reactor, but it was nonfunctional for a bomb. Sheets instead of spheres or nuggets of uranium were to be used, a most inefficient arrangement. I also suggest some interesting reading regarding a possible Japanese A-bomb: "Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb" by Robert K. Wilcox, 1995. Both books are available through www.amazon.com Finally, for Stefan in Germany - an inriguing tome which covers a considerable amount of information on strange German aircraft projects near the end of WWII is "Man-Made UFOs, 1944-1994 50 Years of Suppression" by Renato Vesco and David Hatcher Childress, AUP Publishers Network. Oh gaawd, there's THAT word (UFO) again. The book was originally published under another title with only Vesco's name on it (don't have that title), but it has some very intriguing data on various projects by the Horten Brothers (such as the flying-wing type craft that have a strong similarity to the B-2). There apparently were at least a dozen types of craft being developed by Horten, with several having upwards of 6 turbojets and expected top speeds of 977 kph. The book is availble at most bookstores (Border's, Barnes and Noble) and can be directly ordered from Adventures Unlimited Press, P.O. Box 74, 303 Main St., Kempton IL 60946-0074. Cost is $18.95 plus shipping and handling. A mind (and imagination) expanding read if I do say so myself. Best regards, Jim Bjaloncik Stow, OH USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:51:48 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: SR-71 Status I was on Leland Haynes webpage, http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srreco~1.htm and came across, Jay Murphy (SR-71 Program Mgr), jay.murphy@lmco.com, Jay's most recent addition to this page. He states that his title is "now the SR-71 Program Manager at the Skunk Works". I emailed Jay and asked him what the status of the Blackbird was, with termination and all, and he replied back to me. I asked and he said I could forward his reply to this list. Jay Murphy's reply: Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 12:59 PM > Reference your question. The Air Force still has two operational aircraft > at > Edwards AFB and two stored aircraft, one at Edwards and one at the Skunk > Works in Palmdale. NASA has two aircraft currently operational. > > Air Combat Command just released some money to initiate the retirement of > the two operational aircraft by the end of June. NASA isn't sure what they > are going to do; deactivate their two and give them back to the Air Force, > store the two they currently have for future use, or take the two > operational aircraft from the aircraft and store all four for future > programs. > > The last crewmember leaves Edwards this week and ASC has the ball for the > deactivation but no funding to do anything. > > That's the latest. > > Cheers > > Jay Murphy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:13:49 -0800 From: patrick Subject: EA-6B Pilots on trial in Italy "60 Minutes" this sunday will interview the pilot who cut the gondola wires with his EA-6B. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:39:10 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: German Secret Aircraft Projects The Meyer and Schick book and a second volume dealing with strategic bombers and other types are available in German from Motorbuch Verlag in Stuttgart. Also recommended is the "Die Deutsche Luftrüsting" multivolume set by Heinz J.Nowarra out of Bernard & Graefe Verlag. Keyboard-challenged folks can get these from Wede in Hamburg, Christian Schmidt in München and other shops. Midland Counties and Aviation Bookstore in and London also stock multiple titles. Schiffer offers an interesting approach, illustrated with photos of 1:72 scale models of jet and rocket Projekts, but the accompanying drawings are very badly reproduced. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:52:31 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: Long-Classified SR-71/U-2 Film FINALLY Available The Story of the 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing Film Number 342 SFP 2144 Originally Created and Classified Secret by the US Air Force As you may be aware, the 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing started in 1966, included high altitude aircraft such as the SR-71 and U-2, and in 1976 became the 9th SRW at Davis-Monthan AFB. In the summer of 1997, I requested a copy of this film from the Air Force. The request has been wending its way through the system and I am pleased to announce that processing is nearly done. So, the film is available upon written request from: James W. Martin, Archivist Motion Picture Processing Work Group National Archives and Records Administration at College Park 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001 Fax: 301-713-6904 Please send requests in writing only. Expect to pay a few bucks for a videocassette duplicate. If you require Broadcast Quality, that will be available but will be more expensive due to additional processing steps. Declassification Review of this film is pending and should be completed very shortly. Michael Ravnitzky mikerav@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:03:19 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: FBI Records on the SR-71 Aircraft FBI Files on the SR-71 Aircraft YOU CAN GET THE FBI FILES ON THE SR-71 AIRCRAFT. There are several hundred pages available. You can also mention other program names if you wish. YOUR ADDRESS TODAY’S DATE TO: Federal Bureau of Investigation Attn: Freedom of Information - Privacy Act Unit Office of Public and Congressional Affairs 935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0000 USA Sir or Madam: This is a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act concerning THE SR-71 AIRCRAFT. I request a copy of all records about this SUBJECT which are at the FBI. This includes (but is not limited to) documents, reports, memoranda, letters, bulkies, ELSUR (electronic surveillance) records and indices, Official and Confidential files, Personal and Confidential Files, electronic files, database references, “do not file” files, and other miscellaneous files and index citations relating to the subject in other files (i.e. “see also” references). I would like the ELSUR indices searched. In terms of which indices to search, please interpret this request broadly. Please search your central general indices and not just the more recent computer indices. PLEASE SEND ME ALL MAIN FILES AND CROSS-REFERENCES, AND THE SEARCH SLIP. I REQUEST ALL CROSS-REFERENCES. FOIA regulations provide that if some material is properly exempt from mandatory disclosure, all segregable portions must be released. If the requested material is released with deletions, I ask that each deletion be marked to indicate the exemption(s) being claimed to authorize each particular withholding. Also, I ask that your agency exercise its discretion to release records which may be technically exempt, but where withholding serves no important public interest. If any records remain classified, I ask that you review these records for declassification. I agree to pay reasonable costs associated with search and reproduction of the requested records up to a maximum of $25 without my further permission. MENTION HERE IF YOU ARE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDIA, AN EDUCATOR, OR A COMMERCIAL ENTITY. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, YOUR NAME YOUR PHONE NUMBER ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:09:21 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: Technical Reports on SR-71, U-2, etc. You can get a list of technical reports on the SR-71, A-12, U-2, or any other aircraft. Just plug in the historical aircraft of interest. You can include all the variant names. __________________________________ (your address) __________________________________ __________________________________ _____________________________ (today’s date) Defense Technical Information Center Attn: DTIC-RSM (Kelly D. Akers, Freedom of Information Act Manager) 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6128 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST Dear Ms. Akers: Pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request a computer-generated technical report bibliography for ALL computer-indexed years on the following subjects/keywords: __________________ or __________________ or ___________________ If I have selected poor keywords, please have your search experts substitute better keywords if they can. Please use your judgment to place my request into the proper fee category. I agree in advance to pay up to $25 for reasonable fees associated with this request, if necessary. Sincerely, ____________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:06:48 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Subject: [MilCom] Additional "Silent Sentry" info 0034z 22 Jan 99 The 18 Jan 98 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology has a cover feature titled "Uncloaking Stealth" beginning on page 58, with all articles written by David A. Fulghum. The article on page 60 titled "Eliminating Noise Key to Anti-Stealth Radar" goes into a discussion of the use of the <2 GHz spectrum (R7100/R8500 range) and the problems caused by consumer emitters (PCS, navaids, tv etc); and the use of new noise reduction algorithms to clear out the clutter. The article starting on page 61 titled "Space Tracking Plan Eyes Mobile Missiles" discusses at length the Lockheed Martin "Silent Sentry" system and it's possible use in a future European and North American continental defense against stealth cruise missiles etc (left unstated is that the fine engineers at Lockheed Martin have just militarized every commercial FM/TV bcst antenna site in North America and Europe - hazard duty pay for the site engineer). It points out the differences between what can be accomplished with FM (bcst) signals and with TV (bcst) signals. It also expands on a comment made in an earlier article re how this system was developed by Lockheed Martin over "the past 15 years". It seems that it's based on a system developed for "U.S. airborne intelligence gatherers" to capture enemy radar signals and their "returns from the object it sees" which allowed the gatherers to see what the enemy was seeing. The author was told that the technology is now "dated" and that the "U.S. now has the ability to intercept the enemy's complete air radar picture as it is transmitted around the battlefield..". The author relates that it was not said if this capability was derived from signals interception or from "hacking" techniques. Jeff Haverlah - -- 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, 25 Jan 99 07:49:13 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: New ballistic missile defense system On 1/21/99 11:46AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990121114644.006f9510@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > Lets talk ballistic missile defense....... > > No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk > of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the > grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion > dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you > can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet > provinces, etc..... > Most of the "extra" money is actually money that either was already in the budget to cover inflation, or is to be realized through "Management efficiencies". All Bill did was say, "If inflation isn't as much as expected, then instead of freezing this money you may use it for other purposes. If inflation is at or what we expected, or if the 'Management Efficiencies' don't pan out, then you're S.O.L.". Part of the rest of the money is to cover the upcoming military pay raise that he approved but didn't fund. The rest of the "extra" money is earmarked to cover part of the increased expenses of the Bosnia misadventure. > 1. Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3 > stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally > lob one into our backyard? Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if > we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!" > After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are > capable of unleashing. I just don't see any logic in this threat > whatever. I realize they are building a device but do we understand why > they are doing it? > Try this logic: "We are going to move on S. Korea. (or Japan or wherever), in order to defend ourselves from the starvation caused by evil Western Imperialism. Are you willing to sacrifice Seattle in order to interfere with us? We really don't care how many peasants you blow up in any retaliation. Besides, then we'd use our second missile". > 2. We don't have a real good track record in this area. The THAAP testing > going on at White Sands becomes more dismal with each failing test there. > The intercepts are just not happening. I'm sure the SCUD busters stationed > just down the road at Ft. Bliss are looking over their shoulders and > commenting "At least we hit something once in awhile." > I could point out the Polaris missile system had 13 consecutive failures before they got one right. However, this is comparing apples and oranges. We're not talking about tactical missiles but ICBMs. ICBMs move faster than TBMs, true, but they also fly higher (making them easier to spot and shoot, are more predictable in their flight paths and tend to have longer flight times. > 3. What systems do they actually intend on employing.....and whatever it > is they claim the system will be online in 2005. With such a quick > installation can we then assume more money will need to be thrown into the > breach to meet the deadline? The problem is not developing and deploying such a system, but deciding to to so and funding that. This has been anathema since 1993. Keep in mind here that we're not talking about intercepting hundreds of missiles, only tens at most (in a first stage). The Aegis/Standard (upgrade) system shows great promise, but working to hard in this area has been a sure way to get funding cut. Ironically, if we deployed it, we'd be able to defend Tokyo but not Los Angeles :o > > 4. Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system? We had > developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement > with the Soviets. Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this > impede progress on their Star Wars programs. You mean the agreement we had with a nation that violated it, and no longer exists in any case? That agreement? Your understanding of the Sprint (actually Sprint/Spartan) system is mistaken. It was not dismantled because of any treaty. In fact the ABM treaty specifically authorized it. It was dismantled because Senator Ted Kennedy took it as a personal affront that it was deployed even though he didn't like it. He quietly attached a rider to a bill that specifically forbade the expenditure of any money for operation of the system. He did this a couple of months before the system was to become operational. What the effect of this was that once they finished construction, they were now operational. Since Teddy K. had made it a crime to spend any money on operating the system. AS soon as acceptance tests were complete they had to shut it down. > > 5. And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient > enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully > penetrating its barriers? Actually, that wasn't concluded. One goal of SDI was to reduce the number of warheads that made it to detonation. A bigger goal was to introduce a high degree of uncertainty into which warheads would make it. This meant that the adversary would have to build an unaffordable number of missiles to overcome this (which could easily be countered by building more of the far cheaper defenses), or would have to vastly reduce the number of warheads in order to carry decoys and countermeasures to overcome the defenses to the point where you could count on destroying the target you wanted (of course now you have less warheads so that's another uncertainty). As a byproduct, any small attacks by terrorist nations would be easy to deal with. > So somehow now we are able to prevent a handful > of incoming ICBM's so therefore its a rational thing to do? It would probably be considered rational by anyone who happened to be in the target area of those handful of missiles. Remember, this is a vastly easier problem than was faced by SDI. > This may make > sense but I really hope we aren't spending bazillions of dollars for a > system that is inherently flawed while we are all told it works fine. I hope so too. From Tony: >"The panel believes the intelligence community has a strong case that for >sound >technical reasons the United States is unlikely to face an indigenously >developed and tested intercontinental ballistic missile threat from the third >world before 2010, even taking into account the acquisition of foreign >hardware >and technical assistance, and that case is even stronger than was presented in >the estimate." >Gates report, December 1996 This particular report does not inspire as much confidence as it did then for a couple of reasons. First, given how long it takes to do things in might indeed take us until 2010 to field something. More importantly, since the Chinese and North Koreans in 1997-98 demonstrated technologies and capabilities that in 1996 were thought to be unachievable by them until 2003-5, the 2010 estimate looks suspiciously like wishful thinking. Don't pick on the intel community too much. Lately, it's become apparent that a good way to end your career is to come up with an assessment that doesn't support the official foregone conclusion. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #6 ******************************* 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