From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #94 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 Friday, August 13 1999 Volume 08 : Number 094 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Early depictions of stealth technology FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Machrianish, and [really] Mary. Recent conclusions Re: Comprehensive TWA 800 site FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT HELPED DEVELOP OUR SPY ... Re: SR-71 top speed. Was: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT HELPED DEVELOP OUR SPY ... Re: Recent conclusions Re: Comprehensive TWA 800 site *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:09:31 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Early depictions of stealth technology Urban Fredriksson pointed out, >> "Allen Thomson" wrote: >> A question, maybe a FAQ: are there other examples in early fiction or >>semi-fiction (e.g., Popular Mechanics writing) of radar stealth based on >> real physical principles, as opposed to magic or imaginary future >> science? How much earlier than 1953 do they go? >Robert Heinlein's _Between Planets_ from 1951 has ground vehicles >(hovercraft?) on Venus radar stealthed from above by being shaped like >reflective cones. Found it; it was a small boat, apparently a surface skimmer. Toward the end of Chapter 13, it says, "[It was] a flat, jet-propelled saucer fifteen feet across... The upper-works of the boat were covered by a low, polished cone of sheet metal intended to reflect horizontal radar waves upward, or vice versa. It could not protect against that locus in the sky, cone-shaped like the reflector itself, where reflections would bounce straight back to originating stations -- but the main dependence was on speed in any case." Clearly Heinlein understood the principles of the reflective/geometric radar stealth we are familiar with today -- in fact, his boat somewhat adumbrates (so to speak) Lockheed's Sea Shadow. He even appreciated the existence of the normal-incidence "side flash." It would be interesting to find out if he came up with this concept himself, or got it from some earlier source. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:56:58 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Machrianish, and [really] Mary. - ---------- > Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" > > >> From: Dan Zinngrabe > >> And, from Trader's (Paul) last report on his SENIOR CITIZEN research, > > > >Has he discovered anymore illustrations? (Do you have an up-to-date URL > >to cover his most recent SC findings?). > > The last time I heard from Paul he was doing a lot of traveling and > was not able to devote much time and energy into A/C. > Several other list members do have "illustrations" and other material > that may pertain to SENIOR CITIZEN, but Trader had the real gold > nuggets in his budget analysis. > > >All sorts of things happened, except the crash of a 'black' aircraft. I > >have read a number of extremely tenuous stories, including one at Dan's > >[Zinngrabe] site. That's interesting because certain UK sources have indicated that something big did happen. Yes, I know that this proves nothing, but when somebody formerly involved in classified defence projects with British Aerospace tells me that a classified a/c was involved in the Boscombe "incident" - and this is supported by the testimony of mil spotters - then we should not be too skeptical. I hope that these US researchers have spoken to English witnesses - maybe they have - including the ones who were forcibly removed by Military Police (I've been to Boscombe on numerous occasions and it's never happened to me) on the night in question. What's more, there is a history of such activity at Boscombe as late as Feb. 1997 where an RAF source, on the base at the time, whom I interviewed at length, testified that she had seen the test flight of a triangular a/c at the base early one morning. Not to mention the ever-so-weird 1990 events featuring a black triangle and some sort of non-lethal weaponry. Who knows what the code names for these projects are. Does it really matter? I doubt it; from a Ufological perspective we have no evidence to suggest anything other than, in a handful of cases, secret man-made technology, part of a UKUSA project, and serious efforts to put researchers off the trail. > > Since then I've collected 2 more stories of that night, from two > radically different perspectives, but those (if they're published at > all) will wait for v2.0 of the website or a book :) > More interesting is a sighting of a U-2 like aircraft on the moors > around the same time, that will definitely be in Black Dawn 2.0 (yup, > still have it Chris G.). > > >So, the road closure is something that happens at this R&D > >establishment, and nothing crashed or was stored in/around the hangar as > >claimed. Really? This is actually an extremely rare event. Even the gates near the Chemical Weapons facility at Porton Down are closed rarely, and I know this because I have family who live nearby! Furthermore, the initial reporting was supported by Jane's Defence Weekly. Trying to link in any visiting aircraft is opening up a whole > >can of worms (ie all the military airfields I have been on have visiting > >aircraft). If I had to guess (and this is NOT based on info from my > >father) the Galaxy was more likely bringing AH/MH-6's for exercises on > >Salisbury Plain/Middle Wallop (BD is the closest runway that could > >support a Galaxy), and the Yanks were quite pleased of the diversion. > >In other words, a, relatively, 'normal' day/night at a military test > >airfield. Simply not what the witnesses and the evidence indicates! > > For better or for worse, no (American) Little Birds were on the scene > at the time. The C-5's supposed destination does raise some eyebrows > though. The speculation that it was one of the C-5's that is configured > to carry "special" cargo is irrelevant- it's not like the accident > involved a KH-11 or the Hubble. > > >If nothing else this has been an interesting study in the propagation of > >myth, including our own contribution. We had an innocent comment from > >Mary, leading to a particular response from me (I must have been > >watching 'Deep Throat' again, no not THAT film, the first episode of > >'The X-Files'), leading to comparisons with Menwith Hill (I wasn't aware > >that Menwith had an active runway...), and we're off [charter] on the > >trail of 'big brother/NWO' eavesdropping conspiracies involving 'UKUSA > >Agreement' sites. Oh please do not bring Pine Gap into this ... For God's sake this is no myth. British Members of Parliament have been seeking to find out what has been going on at the NSA station for years. I personally have spoken to the protesters at the facility as well as a host of activists in the peace movement who know the lengths and depths that the Yanks have been prepared to go to sabotage European economies, major companies and so forth on a regular basis for decades.... This is a matter of public record. NOT just the stuff of Covert Action Quarterly but a frequent focus for reporting in the mainstream media!!!! Several of us have been looking into Menwith Hill and we now have official reports proving the activities there. I've been there and seen the security myself on many occasions. After all, NSA operatives have been known to break down people's doors, take their computer discs and files, follow protesters and all this on UK soil. I bet they love UKUSA! AS to similar matters of FACT a colleague of mine interviewed a former French minister of state and he described an ongoing battle starting in the 1970s between the independently-minded French military and a number of classified US aircraft that were frequently caught over France (and Belgium, now isn't that interesting?!!) carrying out illegal recon' missions......! > > I just find the whole Echelon thing to be very boring these days > because it's been so well documented in the past. The only > information to come to light recently has been the efforts to monitor > the Interent, and even that was more or less what any SysAdmin or > spook would expect NSA to do. You forgot the economic sabotage, Irish government complaints to the British and American governments, the Capenhurst spying tower, reports into the NSA by a host of organisations of most political persuasions and complaints to and by British MPs and European MEPS regarding the activities of the NSA in Britain and Europe. > > Dan - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:17:17 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III, PhD" Subject: Recent conclusions I have been asked to comment upon the 5 June 1968, "disappearance" of A-12 60-6932, piloted by Jack Weeks on an FCF after an engine change at RODN. As far as I can tell, the airplane disappeared 520nm east (?) of Manilla, the Philippines. The reason I am interested in the assistance of the Skunk Works list members is to address the issue of whether or not this was a "mysterious" loss or just the sad loss of an airplane and its pilot. Some allegations have arisen that the airplane's disappearance was not accidental, and the reason no wreckage was found in the vicinity was because the airplane was never there. I am not sympathetic to the "defector" paranoia, but I would be grateful from real A-12 and SR-71 cognoscenti to crush this bug before it makes it on television or the X-Files. Comments, please. DrBob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 99 01:15:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Comprehensive TWA 800 site On 8/12/99 5:46AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990812054628.00770b00@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > Art---You may joke around and make light of all this but when the MIB's > knock on your door you will be whistling an entirely differernt tune. You > will call me if you see any of them, won't you? > > patrick > They've already here; It's OK, I'll tell them I love Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith and then... Wait...what was that flash?... What were we talking about? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:42:13 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT HELPED DEVELOP OUR SPY ... FOR Larry Smith, Skunk-Works FOR Ron Craft, UASR FOR Lynda Matthews, UASR The latest flurry of my cross-posts has caused some chaos and confusion between the Skunk-Works and UASR lists. Larry Smith commented on his relationship with John Andrews. Ron Craft questioned me (Terry) thinking I wrote the paragraph. Now, as the uninvited catalyst I am getting singed on both sides of my body, the skeptical observer side, and the hesitant believer side. I'll get out my old NOMEX suit and gloves and get my forked stick for the marshmallows and hot dogs (rolled in the ashes) while I'm roasting [;>))]. Let me say that as a middle grounder (OK, fence straddler!) I find both the black aircraft (known and rumoured) and alleged UFOs arenas of interest. Also, reports between the two may have been confused. The CIA report on black aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s that were identified as UFOs has resulted in UFO disbelievers touting this as proof that "all" UFO reports are suspect. Again, a middle ground is sought by a great number of UFO hobbyists and researchers. Several skeptics have went beyond critical analysis and attacked the credentials, intentions, intelligence, and professionalism of UFO researchers. Agreed, that some of the fly-by-night UFO and paranormal hawkers are selling the unknown/misunderstood as "snake oil" for profit. No proof on Corso's allegations in his book _The Day After Roswell_, and only circumstantial evidence that his career permitted access to compartmented intelligence in recovered alien technology. No one has checked his peers, superiors, and defense contractor contacts to at least verify he manipulated "foreign" technology - eg night vision goggle work at Fort Belvoir, Virginia in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The reviews I've found on the internet have been at the least doubting of Corso's comments on reverse engineering, the CIA and KGB collaboration, and other aspects of a government within a government. I read his book over a weekend using a borrowed copy. Anyone wishing copies of these five or six Corso critiques please e-mail me privately at < fortean@primenet.com >. Please don't delay as I'm off at the end of August to work in Kuwait on a two year contract. My qualifications are too meager to place me in the big league. My interest has spanned the last 35 years. All proof is anecdotal, even my daylight sighting here in Arizona on July 20, 1991. Best wishes, Terry - ------------------------------- In a message dated 8/13/99 1:51:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fortean@PRIMENET.COM forwarded: > knew John Andrews personally. I AM familiar with the evidence > that Bill McDonald claims he knows about. Bill McDonald has > GROSSLY misstated what Ben Rich said. In fact, there are some > published accounts of what Ben Rich said, and he doesn't even > have the knowledge of those to check his statements. I guess I'll have to answer this, since my post was quoted in Terry's message. With regard to the paragraph above: Would you clarify that paragraph, Terry? I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here, and I'm sure other readers are equally puzzled. Does this relate to proof you have that Col. Corso was a phoney and his work was fiction? If so, would you post it? How did you become familiar with that information, and what, precisely, are your qualifications? Believe me,> you believers just latch on to whatever you read someplace. A nonbeliever attacking believers, then asking believers to believe him regarding their beliefs?? That's a chuckle or two - I don't believe I've ever read anything quite like that, beleive me. . >This is the probem with your belief system, you'll never know the> truth, because you don't investigate! That, sir, is a generalization with no basis in fact. Speaking for myself, I've had quite a bit of experience with ufo phenomena throughout my life and career. I'm sure that's true for many subscribers to this list. Serious investigators invariably run into the same stone wall, that of government agencies who've been acquiring data for decades keeping a very tight lid on it. Again speaking for myself, logical, concise conclusions can be drawn from known data, and one can and should apply the hypothesis that fits best, whether it's acceptable to the pseudoscientists of the skeptical community or not. That's as far as one can go with the data at hand, even after decades of digging. IMHO most skeptics have an attitude problem, ie this topic is foreign to my personal experience and current belief system, therefore it is not true or doesn't exist. There's a bit of egocentricity involved there. It's akin to first year university students completing a few first year physical science survey courses and elementary psychology, then assuming they're educated and qualified to comment on the intricacies and mysteries of the extraterrestial universes, alien encounter phenomena and ufology in particular. Speaking in general here,> the truth is much more interesting than the fabrications for> press coverage! Precisely. However, the truth is never quite what skeptics believe it is, or many observers, for that matter, very often because the skeptic lacks the intellectual integrity and fortitude to say "I don't know". ron - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:05:17 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed. Was: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? If inlet design is boring to you, then hit the kill switch! Sorry! > Hey Larry, sorry for the way late response, I had been very busy, >I was sent to work in Area 5.... uppss... never mind ;) >... Catch any fish in the nearby lake? Rent a rowboat sometime and try it out! > 1) What is wrong in having the spikes cones fully FORWARD >(extended) at max. speed? > 2) What is wrong in having the shock inside of the inlet? Multiple >shocks? Some supersonic airplanes inlet was designed like that. It will >slow way down the incoming flow. > 3) What happened if it is a STRONG shock and not a WEAK shock as >you calculated before? There are ways to create strong shocks. > All the comments or questions about means that the Blackbird can >go way faster from the calculations that you just made in terms of >aerodynamics. > but... There are not cooling >systems? I composed a response to all of the above questions. The response was excessively large and probably boring to most people. So I will send it to you personally. If anyone wants the response, just send me private email and I'll be happy to send you a copy too. > So, if I am understand, CIT is before the incoming air slows >down? No - AFTER the incoming air slows down! CIT max stands for Maximum Compressor Inlet Temperature. The Compressor is at the front of the turbojet itself, the J58. The J58 is BEHIND the entire inlet, or downstream of the entire inlet. The entire inlet has been able to do its job first BEFORE the compressor on the front of the turbojet is reached. This is significant! It occurred to me, while composing the earlier responses, that this CIT max proof is ALL that is needed! Why? Because, it models the perfect PERFORMANCE of ANY SUCCESSFUL supersonic inlet located upstream of a J58! So we don't need to argue inlet design. CIT max and ambent temperature, used in the stagnation temperature equation, models a perfect inlet! Why is that? The J58 requires the inlet design to stagnate (decelerate to almost zero velocity) the flow with MINIMAL energy losses. All supersonic inlets do that (except for scramjet inlets which keep the flow supersonic). The kinetic energy of the flow, is being converted to potential energy. This energy conversion occurs when the velocity energy of the air molecule gets stored in the air molecule as internal molecular lattice vibrational energy, which appears as an air temperature increase to us. Since increased air molecule temperature, during the conversion process, comes from decelerating the air molecule, the CIT max specifies the greatest deceleration or highest external Mach number that can be decelerated to near zero velocity, with minimal losses, before the CIT max temperature is reached! The beginning outside temperature is also a factor that can effect the results. If the outside inlet air is colder than normal, you can decelerate a higher than normal Mach flow, before CIT max is reached. Namely, you are then going faster than normal at that altitude that day at CIT max. Likewise, if its hotter than normal outside the inlet, you reach CIT max at a lower Mach number than normal. Namely, you are not going as fast as you normally can at that altitude that day at CIT max. The flow stagnation process done by the inlet, can be modelled by the stagnation temperature equation, which can take CIT max and ambient temperature and provide the maximum Mach number that can be converted into that CIT max, given the starting outside ambient temperature. But the stagnation temperature equation models a perfect inlet. One with no losses at all. And it also models taking the flow to zero velocity, which a real inlet doesn't exactly do (real inlets decelerate the flow to around Mach .2 or so). Since a real world inlet is not perfect, things like inlet skin friction, will also increase the temperature of the air molecule, eating up some of the CIT max temperature. The stagnation teperature equation won't model this. But! For purposes of this discussion, this says that any real world inlet cannot do better than the stagnation temperature equation! As the stagnation temperature equation models an inlet that has no skin friction, and that can spend all of CIT max on slowing down the outside flow! So, Su-Wei, any inlet you design (like the SR's inlet - it can't have a mechanism to further cool the inlet air as the SR doesn't have that), cannot do better than the stagnation temperature equation! So, as stated in my past post, per the stagnation temperature equation: At 85,000 ft. CIT max is reached at around Mach 3.3. At 100,000 ft, where it is hotter, CIT max is reached at Mach 3.2! So, with those conditions, and a standard SR, those are the maximum speeds. (unless you argue that the SR is a scramjet - and then ... ) :) So, as we discussed earlier, if its cold enough outside, the SR can go a little faster. But we're not talking Mach 4 or Mach 5, or any faster! We're talking Mach 3.3, 3.4, 3.5. Somewhere in there. Art says evidence exists of Mach 3.7 being done. I guess I could believe that, but another point of this discussion is that mission planning needed to target the correct atmospheric conditions in that situation. To make the airplane do that with regularity, I think you have to make some changes. I recall the SR-71 Researchers Guide confirming this (I think it was Vol II). > Hehe, it is becoming more like a technical paper review now :) Indeed! :) So when your friends at Area 5... tell you about an SR-71 flying at Mach 10, I hope you are now able to tell them to jump in the nearby lake! Or better yet, row them out onto Groom Lake, and throw them overboard! Seriously, I hope you tell them about CIT max when they say that. I hope I've been able to explain it well enough! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:31:42 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT HELPED DEVELOP OUR SPY ... >The latest flurry of my cross-posts has caused some chaos and confusion >between the Skunk-Works and UASR lists. >... >Now, as the uninvited catalyst I am getting >singed on both sides of my body, the skeptical observer side, and the >hesitant believer side. I am sorry Terry. I was not attacking you or Ron or even Bill McDonald personally. I was attacking what the cross post said. But, it is not in the charter to discuss this subject on skunk.works. So you shouldn't cross post these things here because they will not cause discussion - only flames. I will send you privately a response for Ron. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:46:26 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Re: Recent conclusions At 02:17 PM 08/13/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>I have been asked to comment upon the 5 June 1968, "disappearance" of
>A-12 60-6932, piloted by Jack Weeks on an FCF after an engine change
>at RODN.
>
>As far as I can tell, the airplane disappeared 520nm east (?) of
>Manilla, the Philippines.
>
>The reason I am interested in the assistance of the Skunk Works list
>members is to address the issue of whether or not this was a
>"mysterious" loss or just the sad loss of an airplane and its pilot.
>Some allegations have arisen that the airplane's disappearance was
>not accidental, and the reason no wreckage was found in the vicinity
>was because the airplane was never there. I am not sympathetic to the
>"defector" paranoia, but I would be grateful from real A-12 and SR-71
>cognoscenti to crush this bug before it makes it on television or the
>X-Files.
>
>Comments, please.
>
>DrBob

DrBob,  (and skunkers)

I forwarded your message to Frank Murray who was one of the A-12 operational drivers (and a good friend of Weeks I believe) . He may have been the one who told the story to Crickmore (whose account you seem familiar with) Another good source might be Col (ret) Hugh C. (Slip) Slater who was one of the two alternating detachment commanders at Kadena.

(Slater's address under separate cover to Drbob)

I have heard the crew chief of #6932 say that he thought that Weeks, knowing he might never again get the opportunity (this was the last A-12 at Kadena and due to be ferried back to the States and storage as soon as it passed the FCF), may have wanted to set a personal speed record and/or see what the bird could really do. The crew chief theorized that the plane broke up when Weeks got too fast.

Frank Murray does not subscribe to this theory, however, and I believe there was a telemetry record of the demise of this aircraft. There was a system known as Birdwatcher which was developed for the U-2 post Powers which would broadcast bursts of data on SSB whenever certain events occurred. (The U-2 had 40 channels including such events as: altitude below 60,000, EGT below 325, overmach, over or under G, canopy jettison, etc.) I believe Frank said the A-12 had 60 channels and he said that the readout from Weeks' last flight was consistent with something really bad happening to the engine that had been replaced after giving Frank trouble when he had FCF'd it in preparation for the transpac ferry. I believe the Birdwatcher would have squawked and left a record if Weeks had overmached the aircraft as the crew chief thinks.

At any rate, the fact that Birdwatcher recorded convincing details of the demise of the aircraft is enough in my mind to refute any defection theory.

Joe Donoghue




------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:35:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Comprehensive TWA 800 site At 09:30 AM 8/12/99 -0700, Tony Craddock said: >>>> I have no personal knowledge of what brought down either TWA 800 or PanAm 121, but I do find it disrespectful to the hundreds of innocent Americans and others who perished in these disasters to treat the matter with deliberately ill-informed levity. <<<<<<<< I consider the friendly fire theory to be just as ill-conceived and I consider it also to be rude and offensive to the victims families. And I consider your cheap ploy to use the victims to sanctify your arguments equally offensive. >>>> Perhaps I am all wet and should just regard the loss of a few hundred civilian air passengers as just another distraction from being vigilant against "the enemy", and something that should reflexively be swept under the rug and treated with derision. <<<<<<<< Who is "the enemy" Tony? Who are they? >>>> Having heard KTLA TV in Los Angeles report that the TWA Pilot's Association were informed by Pentagon sources that TWA 800 was brought down by "friendly fire" one can certainly assume that all is not as it seems, especially when this is coupled to the other anomalies extant to this event. <<<<<<<< The Pentagon has not announced this. They in fact deny it. >>>> Interesting, too that you should feel that this event is joined at the hip with the PanAm 121 incident, which it may well be genealogically. <<<<<<<< That is Art's view, my partner in crime. >>>> Snip.....snip So, in conclusion, let's have some respect for the dead, please, as they all may well have perished as the result of criminal acts by rogue elements operating outside the Constitution of the United States - the very elements who Constitutionally should have protected them. <<<<<<<< Lets respect them by not using them as a soccer ball we kick around here in our discussions. You aren't concerned in the least about them. >>>> Relevance to Skunkworks List? I was just following a previous thread started by others. <<<<<<<< Tony, say that with a straght face without laughing!! <<<<<<<< Actually I am offended you offer up Oliver Stone as a documentarian (and not as a panderer to your conspiatory fears). And I am offended you give us some little weasel who violates known and accepted trademark violations as some champion of liberty fighting the Establishment for a right to be heard. And I am offended you continuously attempt to weave your views about "aliens" into our Skunk works discussions with leading questions and obvious off subject "news" articles or "evidence" that you believe supports your claims. I have offered to discuss these matters with you on a friendly basis in private email. I won't discuss this thread publicly after this post. After all, my comments too are off the approved subject list. >>>> patrick cullumber ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #94 ******************************** 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