From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #95 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, August 14 1999 Volume 08 : Number 095 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Swept-back wings(?) Re: Swept-back wings(?) Re: The Tri-Lateral Commision Re: Machrihanish et al. RE: Machrihanish et al. Birdwatcher Re: Swept-back wings(?) Re:Swept-back wings(?) RE: Machrihanish et al. FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) Re: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) Re: Birdwatcher Re: FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma Re: Machchrianish et al. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:43:28 -0400 From: Don Hackett Subject: Swept-back wings(?) Is this true? What about the rumor that the idea of swept-back wings only dawned upon Americans after the capture of Nazi war data? Every account of the development of the F86, the B47, and whatever else fails to mention this guy. Any historians on the list? Skunk Works Relevance: You figure it out. By the way, the reference is from Randy Cassingham's "This is True" list. He will probably hate me for quoting this, even though I refer to his list (This is True ) as the source. To wit: THIS WEEK'S HONORARY UNSUBSCRIBE goes to Robert Thomas Jones. After enrolling in University of Missouri in 1927, but dropped out a year later to pursue his dream of flying. He joined Charles Fower's flying circus where he traded chores for flying lessons. In 1934, he took a more practical approach: he joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics -- the forerunner of NASA -- in Langley, Va., and in 1946 transferred to NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif. His primary contribution to flight was his 1944 invention of swept-back wings, which are used now on most jet planes, from fighters to passenger transports. When he retired in 1981, Jones received the Congressional Excalibur Award for his contributions to aeronautical science. He also received the Langley Award from the Smithsonian Institution, joining the likes of the Wright brothers and Charles Lindberg. Jones died August 11 in California. He was 89. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:48:30 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Swept-back wings(?) >Is this true? What about the rumor that the idea of swept-back wings >only dawned upon Americans after the capture of Nazi war data? Every >account of the development of the F86, the B47, and whatever else >fails to mention this guy. Any historians on the list? From a European - though generally pro-US POV, :) I can't see how this can be right. Who designed what first is always a minefield, as you know parallel evolution is the way most breakthroughs happen. WRT German tech. ( I'm making that distinction because clearly not all German aero-engineers and scientists were nazis) It wasn't simply data the allies (especially the US) captured. When US troops stumbled across the secret, Hermann Goering Aeronautical Research Institute, set in a thousand acres of woodland near Volkenrode Northern Germany, they could hardly believe their eyes. No one knew anything about this facility. They found the most advanced aeronautical research complex in the world and it wasn't long before G-2 (US tech. Intel) CAFT teams were all over it...even though it was in the British zone. Because of British myopia and engineering arrogance, the US using - shall we say 'dynamic tactics' was able to acquire vast amounts of data, engineers and aircraft etc. from under our (the UK's) nose. Col. Putt who was heading Operation Lusty ( US covert op. aimed at grabbing as much aviaton data, personnel and hardware from Germany as possible) came across Adolf Busemann - the first engineer I'm aware of to promote practical swept wing designs. Under questioning by among others, Theodore Von Karmen he claimed to have been lecturing on the swept wing jet concept since 1935. Also at Volkenrode: Alexander Lippisch - delta wing pioneer and Dietrich Kuchemann - who had developed the swept wing after 1936 and went on to play a major role in the design of Concorde. Even from my generally pro-US standpoint, I can't help but think the US stiffed the UK in a big way over the captured German aerospace expertise. Objectively, I suppose the UK allowed it to happen, so we shouldn't be howling at the Moon over it. Just don't get me started on the Miles M-52 and the Bell X-1 tragedy. If the chief engineer of Miles at the time is correct - it was nothing short of a total - I won't even go there ! as you Americans say ( at least in films) :) Hope this helps a little David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 20:16:11 -0700 From: Steve Apthorpe Subject: Re: The Tri-Lateral Commision >> ABC has cancelled a production by produced by Oliver Stone about the >> downing of TWA Flight 800 ... Patrick replied: > What? And go against the Tri-Lateral Commission. They brought that plane > down for a reason and far be it for me to question their motives. I laughed so much, my bottom actually fell off. And there was me thinking it was because Oliver Stone got "too close" in his last [JFK] 'expose'. We shouldn't be flippant, as we know that we are all 'Echelon targeted,' and those black, unmarked helicopters are dammned quiet. [Note: The use of 'black' helicopters keeps this on charter ...] > My goodness ... the Tri-Lateral Comm ... a driblet of sarcasm?? Well, it started out as a driblet ... I was going to write a rebuttal to Tony Craddock [its called satire], but evidently Patrick is quite capable of doing that himself. I personally find it more offensive when people support their arguments using the 'truth,' as 'revealed solely to them,' from people who are now deceased. I didn't see you leaping to defend the characters of the late John Andrews and the late Ben Rich, Tony - maybe this is because their 'evidence' neatly fits in with your particular 'belief' system. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 20:16:27 -0700 From: Steve Apthorpe Subject: Re: Machrihanish et al. Dan wrote > 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.). Dan, I asked Dad if he had ever seen any U-2 like aircraft at BD. Indeed he had, they were indeed U-2s. No secret, they used BD for circuit and bumps (touch and goes), there may have been trials, Dad can't remember. A guess (and it is only that) it could've been evaluated for ASTOR (which is akin to JSTARS). Incidentaly, the name of the ATC powered glider was a Vigilant. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 12:08:19 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Machrihanish et al. > > Dan, I asked Dad if he had ever seen any U-2 like aircraft at BD. > Indeed he had, they were indeed U-2s. No secret, they used BD for > circuit and bumps (touch and goes), there may have been trials, Dad > can't remember. A guess (and it is only that) it could've been > evaluated for ASTOR (which is akin to JSTARS). Incidentaly, > the name of > the ATC powered glider was a Vigilant. Yey, got my Basic Glider Training wings in that!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:32:03 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Birdwatcher Joe Donoghue said, "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. " First I'd heard of this system -- is there more information about it, such as frequencies, range, data rate, use of relays, etc.? (Speaking of such things, if the A-12 had HF communications capability, what did it use for an antenna?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 11:09:48 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Swept-back wings(?) RE:robert thomas jones. "His primary contribution to flight was his 1944 invention of swept-back wings, which are used now on most jet planes, from fighters to passenger transports." the Me 262 flew in 1942.i don't know the degree of sweep,but the wings were swept to move the center of gravity back due to un expected weight of the engines. wayne d.binkley _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 1999 15:09:37 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re:Swept-back wings(?) On Saturday, August 14, 1999, wayne binkley wrote: >RE:robert thomas jones. > "His primary contribution to flight was his 1944 >invention of swept-back > wings, which are used now on most jet planes, from fighters to > passenger transports." > the Me 262 flew in 1942.i don't know the degree of sweep,but >the wings were swept to move the center of gravity back due to un expected >weight of the engines. > >wayne d.binkley > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > There were aircraft in WWI that had swept wings. - -- Jim Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 12:24:29 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Machrihanish et al. At 12:08 PM 8/14/99 +0100, you wrote: >> >> circuit and bumps..... (touch and goes)????? I dare say, you Brits can be terribly amusing at times! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 12:44:50 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma Did these two scientists ever do anymore work relating to mercury? > However, here we are more interested in the "engines" that are alleged > to have activated these aerial machines. In Science for the 3rd > January 1969, two scientists, Gerald Schubert and J. A. Whitehead, > described a remarkable discovery that they had made about heating > mercury. On filling a wide, shallow, circular dish of mercury and > then revolving a naked flame around and around under said dish, they > observed that the mercury began to revolve in a contrary direction > and with increasing velocity. So far we have been unable to find > anything further published on this or any subsequent experiments, > but will in due course be applying directly to Messrs. Schubert > and Whitehead. Ed Fouche describes just such an engine. From: < http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm > "Sandia and Livermore laboratories developed the reverse engineered MFD technology. The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is NOT antigravity. Anti-gravity provides a repulsive force that can be used for propulsion. The MFD creates a disruption of the Earth's gravitational field upon the mass within the circular accelerator." In my correspondence with Ed, he swears that this technology has been implemented in an aircraft called the TR-3B and has no relationship with the craft publicly known as the TR-3. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry W. Colvin Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 9:42 PM 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 - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: 14 Aug 1999 15:48:03 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) This is a confirmation that the message has been displayed to the user. Note: This is NOT a guarantee that the message has been read or understood. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 14:05:45 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) i don't think any of those ww1 planes had jet engines or could exceed 500 MPH.WDB.(yes i know you did't say they could):) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 16:53:52 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Birdwatcher Stealth is compromised when radio signals give telemetry data. Isn't Tactical Digital Link (TADIL) required on all military aircraft? Terry - ------------------- Allen Thomson wrote: > > Joe Donoghue said, > > "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. " > > First I'd heard of this system -- is there more information about it, such > as frequencies, range, data rate, use of relays, etc.? (Speaking of such > things, if the A-12 had HF communications capability, what did it use for an > antenna?) - -- 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 - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:20:04 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma >been implemented in an aircraft called the TR-3B and has no >relationship with the craft publicly known as the TR-3. > If there never was a TR-3A how did we get a TR-3B? And for that matter who wants to concoct a TR-3C? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:55:24 -0700 From: Steve Apthorpe Subject: Re: Machchrianish et al. > > Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" > 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 - You actually are quite right, it proves nothing, especially as equally, if not more, credible sources say otherwise. Did I categorically claim my evidence proved that nothing happened? No [as I stated, re-read my original post], I did, however provide credible evidence from someone who actually worked there when 'it' crashed and who actually worked in the hangar where 'it' was stored. > then we should not be too skeptical. Should always be skeptical, unless you rely on belief systems rather than evaluating evidence. [Do not confuse skepticism with cynisism]. > I hope that these US researchers have spoken to English witnesses - maybe ^^^^ Hope is no substitute for research, it is part of a belief system. > they have - including the ones who were forcibly removed by Military Police Signed affidavits please, and identify the Military Police (Which service, etc. are they allowed to forcibly remove people from public land? If not prosecute them). In the 23 years that I lived in Civilian Married Quarters at BD, I don't remember seeing any Military Police there (however, I assume there must be a small contingent due to their being RAF personnel at BD). I have seen many MoD (Ministry of Defence) Police guarding the establishment, however they are not military. A small point maybe, but critical research requires such minutiae. If MPs were present, that would indeed be unusual. [Usual caveat: Unless things have changed since I have left, which is possible, but provide evidence.] > 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. Can't comment, my credible source retired in 1995. It is a pity that someone doesn't have a photograph, as it is only illegal to photograph the base and its contents, once it has taken off its fair game. (I don't think I have to repeat the list of numerous vantage points where these photographs could've been taken from.) If the aircraft flew out, it must've got there somehow in the first place (oh, of course, it got there in a Galaxy.) > Not to mention the ever-so-weird 1990 events featuring a black triangle and > some sort of non-lethal weaponry. I asked Dad today about 'black triangles', quote: "Why doesn't anyone who works there see them." Of course, apparently, witnesses who actually worked in the Fixed-Wing Flight Test Squadron at the facility do not make credible witnesses. > Who knows what the code names for these projects are. Does it really > matter? I doubt it Sure, its probably among the last things to be disclosed. > from a Ufological perspective we have no evidence to ^^^^^^^^^^ And the relevance to the Skunk Works charter is? > 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. Which is the same as saying: a) that you have evidence that a handful of cases are concerned with non man-made technology. b) evidence of an Anglo-American project. c) evidence of serious efforts to put researchers off the trail. Extarodinary claims require extraordinary evidence; please supply evidence for point b), the others are not part of this list's charter. > > >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. And what did I say? I never claimed that it happened with any great frequency, just that it has happened in the past, including a couple of occasions that I can remember, and they never raised a murmur. The MoD Police have the power to close a small stretch of road adjacent to the end of the runway for flight related, public safety reasons (it DOES NOT stop people from observing the area from a number of other vantage points, such as from one of the stopped cars on the closed road, they would've had a clear view), and it has happened before (my father said that it has happened, maybe once a year, when an Air-Air Refueling aircraft has landed with a drogue extended, he was the crew-chief who was responsible for fixing it). > 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! And this is germane to what exactly? There are no gates on the Amesbury-Salisbury road to be closed, so gate closing frequency is irrelevant. The road leads to Porton Village, not directly to the Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE) Porton Down [as it was known when I lived in England], though it can be reached that way, along with other routes. CDE does not have a runway, therefore any closing of CDE gates has no bearing on road closures due to public safety issues derived from aircraft incidents [which is what we are discussing afterall]. > Furthermore, the initial reporting was supported by Jane's Defence Weekly. ^^^^^^^ So?, what is their current stand. > Trying to link in any visiting aircraft is opening up a whole > > >In other words, a, relatively, 'normal' day/night at a military test > > >airfield. > > Simply not what the witnesses and the evidence indicates! And by 'the witnesses,' you mean all of them? Evidently, this is 'simply' not true. I was summing up what I had been told by a credible witness. My conclusion, at the end of the post said that I could not be 100% sure, and the burden of evidence is on the people who claim that the 'incident' happened. Personaly, I am still waiting for this, I would be interested in the details from your sources. > > >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. Errr, yes it is. (the propagation of myth is the total process described, the myth is the fallacious linking of all the events.) Any discussion that pertains to the cultural/political implications that are attached to Menwith Hill (and, by inference, every other UKUSA facility) have no place on this list. > AS to similar matters of FACT a colleague of mine interviewed a former ^^^^ Some evidence? Please, do tell. > 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......! Alright, seeing the Minister of State has, I'm sure, already revealed the truth to you, I have to admit that I have been selective with the 'truth.' I have decided to come clean and confirm what you have suspected, and what my faceless witness can confirm, and reveal that there was indeed was a crash at BD involving a 'black' project (I know the name of the craft but I can't reveal this yet until my source has passed away). It was a type of recce aircraft overflying France. Somehow, the French overcame the alien-derived stealth technology, and targeted the craft using LADAR. They then shot at and hit the craft with a depleted uranium projectile, travelling at Mach 20, that was launched from a space-based electro-magnetic railgun. The craft received serious damage and declared an emergency and diverted to BD, not far when travelling at Mach 9! So, yes, I can confirm that it was this recce craft that crashed - no wonder the US wanted to implement a process of disinformation and have the wreckage promptly returned to Groom Lake by Galaxy. And that, as they say, is an example of the propagation of myth. Steve In the CD player: 'I'm a believer' by The Monkee's ... ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #95 ******************************** 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