From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #99 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 21 1999 Volume 08 : Number 099 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Vastly improved style Re: Vastly improved style SR-71 Dash 1 Rocket Booster For Hypersonic Vehicle, X-43A, Has Arrived (fwd) Re: SR-71 Dash 1 RE: Special ops airplane Re: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 RE: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 Re: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 Re: SR-71 Dash 1 Re: SR-71 Dash 1 Re: Future targeting devices Re: Future targeting devices Re: Northwest get-together Re: Future targeting devices FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: A-12 Re: Northwest get-together Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: A-12 Re: Northwest get-together Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:07:01 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > I'm rather surprised no one has flamed me either privately or on > the list. Probably because it doesn't seem to do any good. You just continue to post ufodribble and violate the charter anyway. Flaming only encourages spammers. A true gentleman would respect the list charter without being asked. GregD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@airmail.net %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:02:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, G&G wrote: > > > "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > > > I'm rather surprised no one has flamed me either privately or on > > the list. > > Probably because it doesn't seem to do any good. > You just continue to post ufodribble and violate the charter anyway. > Flaming only encourages spammers. > A true gentleman would respect the list charter without being asked. Actually, it's probably fairer to say that true gentlepersons would respect the charter after the first time it's drawn to their attention that they haven't been doing so. As many mailing lists have a culture that permits a certain looseness in interpreting the written charter, one violation isn't that bad. Sort of the mailing-list version of "every dog gets one bite" if those who don't like dogs will forgive the analogy between those sending messages and dogs. I prefer my dogs to many people, although not so much that I'm going to get a tee shirt bearing the slogan "Of all the people I've met, I like my dogs the best", so I don't think of it as an insult but I do know that some people don't care for such comparisons. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:27:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Vastly improved style Andreas is sufficiently familiar with Pine that he bailed me out of my text and signature at the top problem. Another member of the list, whose name I've clumisly forgotten, also suggested a better mailer than Pine to use, but I'm just a user here and didn't feel right about adding software. However for my home Windows box, it's a different matter entirely. Like Blanche DuBois, I have always relied on the kindness of strangers. You may think me too trusting, but the strangers, although that's too strong a term for people I know through the Internet, have never let me down. One little whimper of frustration and my Pine problem is solved and I have a recommendation for a better mail reader for my home computer. Short of dropping by and actually doing all the keystrokes, how could anyone have helped me more? I laugh, if only to myself, at those who claim that the Internet is not a place of community. Again, my thanks to my two friends whom the world would call strangers because it knows no better. Mary PS. This isn't a plea for help, because I'm going to walk over to the test pilots' office tomorrow and remedy the situation, but last week I discovered that, due to a copying error (two pages probably stuck together while being fed in), I'm missing two pages in my SR-71 Dash-1. They're something like 174 and 175 and I only found out they weren't there when I tried to find out how the weight of the canopy is compensated for, as it requires a force of 266 lb (if my crummy memory for numbers hasn't let me down) to open it. I found the answer on pg 176, after a brief moment of panic. MFS Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:28:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Vastly improved style Mary wrote: >Again, my thanks to my two friends whom the world would call strangers >because it knows no better. You are very welcome! >PS. This isn't a plea for help, because I'm going to walk over to the >test pilots' office tomorrow and remedy the situation, but last week I >discovered that, due to a copying error (two pages probably stuck >together while being fed in), I'm missing two pages in my SR-71 Dash-1. >They're something like 174 and 175 and I only found out they weren't >there when I tried to find out how the weight of the canopy is compensated >for, as it requires a force of 266 lb (if my crummy memory for numbers >hasn't let me down) to open it. I found the answer on pg 176, after a brief >moment of panic. MFS If you can get those two pages (if they are not classified or something), I would love to get a copy (photocopy/fax/scanned image/text only/anything) too, as they are also missing in my Dash-1 (the $99 for the photo version). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 07:27:12 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: SR-71 Dash 1 Andreas wrote: > If you can get those two pages (if they are not classified or something), I > would love to get a copy (photocopy/fax/scanned image/text only/anything) > too, as they are also missing in my Dash-1 (the $99 for the photo version). You might try Jim Goodall at jcgoodall@msn.com. He used to have some. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:48:41 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Rocket Booster For Hypersonic Vehicle, X-43A, Has Arrived (fwd) Hope this hasn't been posted before - if so my apologies. D Source: Dryden Flight Research Center August 18, 1999 Leslie Mathews 661-258-3458 leslie.mathews@dfrc.nasa.gov RELEASE: 99-29 Rocket Booster For Hypersonic Vehicle, X-43A, Has Arrived A modified-Pegasus rocket booster was recently delivered to NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., for a series of test. The booster will be used to power the X-43A, one of the vehicles in NASA's hypersonic flight-research program, called Hyper-X. The Hyper-X, designated X-43, is a 12-foot, unpiloted research vehicle developed and built by MicroCraft Inc., Tullahoma, Tenn. The booster, which was designed, fabricated and tested by Orbital Sciences Corp., Dulles, Va., will be attached to the aft end of the research vehicle and accelerated to test conditions. The X-43/booster "stack"will be air-launched from NASA's B-52 airplane. After being launched from the B-52, the Hyper-X will separate from the rocket at a predetermined altitude and velocity and fly a pre-programmed trajectory, conducting aerodynamic and propulsion experiments until it impacts into the Pacific Ocean. Three research flights are planned, two at Mach 7 and one at Mach 10, or seven and ten times the speed of sound respectively. Currently, the world's fastest airplane, the SR-71, flies slightly over Mach 3. During the next few weeks, the booster will be integrated with its wings, fins and avionics systems. The X-43A is scheduled to arrive at Dryden in October 1999. When it arrives, the research vehicle will go through ground vibration tests, which check for potentially hazardous conditions that may have resulted from the modifications. The Hyper-X program plans to demonstrate airframe-integrated, air-breathing engine technologies that promise to increase payload capacity for future vehicles. Currently, rocket engines are powered by burning fuel with oxygen, both of which must be carried onboard. For X-43, the oxygen needed to burn the fuel will come from the atmosphere. Hyper-X will use the body of the aircraft itself to form critical elements of the engine with the forebody acting as the intake for the airflow and using the aft section as the nozzle. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., has overall management of the Hyper-X program and leads the technology effort. As the lead Center for the flight-research effort, Dryden engineers are working closely with their colleagues from Langley and industry to refine the design of the X-43A. Flights of theX-43A will originate from Dryden and the missions will occur within the Western Sea Range off the coast of California. The first flight is scheduled for spring 2000. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:40:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: SR-71 Dash 1 James P. Stevenson wrote: >Andreas wrote: >>If you can get those two pages (if they are not classified or something), I >>would love to get a copy (photocopy/fax/scanned image/text only/anything) >>too, as they are also missing in my Dash-1 (the $99 for the photo version). >You might try Jim Goodall at jcgoodall@msn.com. He used to have some. You gotta be kiddin' me. :) You don't suppose those two pages are another $99 ? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 07:47:21 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: RE: Special ops airplane "I thought that Jane's revealed this through CNN or some such thing..... did DOD ever admit to the whole thing or did they just keep quiet and let the media do all the talking?" Greg W. Quite a bit is known about the Credible Sport/Eagle Claw aircraft. Andreas posted a wealth of info about them a couple years ago. Just do a web search for Credible Sport and/or Eagle Claw, also search for Iran and Hostage. You'll likely find more than you really wanted to know. The best book written so far about the hostage mission is "The Guts to Try" by Col. James Kyle, the Desert-One commander. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT) From: george.allegrezza@altavista.net Subject: Re: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 Larry wrote: [NASA PR deleted] > >>Within a year, NASA and its industry partners will begin powered, unpiloted, > >>reusable flights of the "X" technology demonstration programs and vehicles, > >>... > >>A NASA-industry briefing will outline the status of the programs -- labelled > >>X-34, X-33 and X-37 -- at 1 p.m. EDT Aug. 24. ... > > Hmmm. > > No mention of X-43! > > Probably because it's not considered near term technology > or immediately civilian. Well, the X-33/34/37 programs are run out of Marshall's Advanced Space Transportation office, and are rocket-powered. The X-43 is joint with Langley's hypersonics office and the USAF, and is of course air-breathing. It probably has to do more with who organized the event than any particular technology bias (not that I'm accusing Larry of accusing NASA of bias). Within NASA, Langley is responsible for high-performance aeronautics and Marshall is responsible for space propulsion and launch vehicles. It sounds like a reasonable division of labor on paper, but from the point of vioew of establishing capabilities, rather than technologies, everything beings to mush together. From a policy perspective, X-37, X-41, and X-42 could be launched from either a mil-spec X-33A or a scaled-up Global Reach (X-43) or VentureStar, which is itself a scaled-up X-33. IMHO, ultimately the USAF will have to decide between Global Reach and the military spaceplane; I doubt it'll be able to afford both. George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 99 11:46:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 Andreas, apparently my post about watching this on the internet never made it through the ether... :-) You can watch NASA-TV live on the web through the RealNetwork. The Real Player streaming technology simulcasts NASA-TV on the web daily. The Real Player is free (although a better version is available for $19 and is worth it) and can be accessed from the RealPlayer site http://www.real.com/welcome/index.html Also from http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/live/ a NASA contractor's site. Greg W. - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: August 19, 1999 9:49 AM To: Larry Smith at INTERNET; skunk-works at INTERNET Subject: RE: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 Larry wrote: [NASA PR deleted] > >>Within a year, NASA and its industry partners will begin powered, unpiloted, > >>reusable flights of the "X" technology demonstration programs and vehicles, > >>... > >>A NASA-industry briefing will outline the status of the programs -- labelled > >>X-34, X-33 and X-37 -- at 1 p.m. EDT Aug. 24. ... > > Hmmm. > > No mention of X-43! > > Probably because it's not considered near term technology > or immediately civilian. Well, the X-33/34/37 programs are run out of Marshall's Advanced Space Transportation office, and are rocket-powered. The X-43 is joint with Langley's hypersonics office and the USAF, and is of course air-breathing. It probably has to do more with who organized the event than any particular technology bias (not that I'm accusing Larry of accusing NASA of bias). Within NASA, Langley is responsible for high-performance aeronautics and Marshall is responsible for space propulsion and launch vehicles. It sounds like a reasonable division of labor on paper, but from the point of vioew of establishing capabilities, rather than technologies, everything beings to mush together. From a policy perspective, X-37, X-41, and X-42 could be launched from either a mil-spec X-33A or a scaled-up Global Reach (X-43) or VentureStar, which is itself a scaled-up X-33. IMHO, ultimately the USAF will have to decide between Global Reach and the military spaceplane; I doubt it'll be able to afford both. George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:52:23 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: X-VEHICLE BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 24 >> >>Within a year, NASA and its industry partners will begin powered, unpiloted, >> >>reusable flights of the "X" technology demonstration programs >> No mention of X-43! George responds: >Well, the X-33/34/37 programs are run out of Marshall ... >The X-43 is joint with Langley's hypersonics office and the USAF, and is of course air-breathing. Hey! George is BACK!! Cool! You're probably right George. I was just doing my job (self-appointed of course), in holding up the airbreathing end of things. Such comments as: "NASA and its industry partners will begin powered, unpiloted reusable flights of the "X" technology demonstration programs", when it doesn't mention MY favorite ""X" technology demonstration program". It's good to have you back George! Another old-timer skunk.works list participant returns! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:55:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 Dash 1 Mary will fax a copy to the first person in the US (calls out of the US require operator intervention on FTS) to promise to make the pages easily available to anyone else here who needs them, for free. No charge to recipient, but it'll take me a little time to track them down. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:50:38 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: SR-71 Dash 1 On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:55:45 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >Mary will fax a copy to the first person in the US (calls out of the US >require operator intervention on FTS) to promise to make the pages >easily available to anyone else here who needs them, for free. No >charge to recipient, but it'll take me a little time to track them down. > >Mary Mary: If you'd like to send them here I'd be happy to scan them and put them up for all who would like to retrieve them in the web archive. Let me know and I'll send you my FAX # off list. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 513 8503 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 99 17:45:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Future targeting devices On 8/15/99 11:08PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > >guided by image as much, if not more, than by IR imaging. Heck, many > > I'm guessing you mean visible light imaging, since IR seekers theses > days are in fact "imaging IR". The current trend isn't toward > TV/visible light seekers but millimeter wave radar, lidar, and more > sensitive IR. Actually, Navy developed and completed testing of a seeker in the visible light range. It was fully flight tested and ready for production on a new version of Sidewinder, the AIM-9R. USAF, which doesn't like IR anyway, refused to further participate in what had been mandated to be a joint program, so Congress cut off funding. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:32:39 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Future targeting devices betnal@ns.net said >Dan Zinngrabe >>guided by image as much, if not more, than by IR imaging. Heck, many >>> I'm guessing you mean visible light imaging, since IR seekers theses >> days are in fact "imaging IR". The current trend isn't toward >> TV/visible light seekers but millimeter wave radar, lidar, and more >> sensitive IR. > Actually, Navy developed and completed testing of a seeker in the visible >light range. It was fully flight tested and ready for production on a new version >of Sidewinder, the AIM-9R. USAF, which doesn't like IR anyway, refused to further >participate in what had been mandated to be a joint program, so Congress cut off >funding. I'm confused as to >who said >what in the above >quotes, so apologies are offered if the above is + or - a > or so. However, and kind of trivially, I've wondered if the muting of US national aircraft insignia over the past decade or so might not be related to the development of optical scene correlators that could be put into missiles and other hostile machinery. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:28:26 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Northwest get-together Thanks Mary for the kind words! I wish I could get down to Edwards (Dryden) this summer to take the tour. I'd definitely try to say hello to you and Pete, and others. If X-43 flies, I gotta get down there and see the takeoff or something. > Speaking of Larry--remember getting together in Portland with Margaret > Puckett and Rich Maine and a bunch of other folks when AIAA had the GNC, > AFM, and Sim Technology conferences there in an August in '90, '91, or > '92? Yes I do! That pizza parlor is still there even. >They had them there again this year ... >I didn't have a paper to present, so we didn't go. ... >we could have had another North-West get-together. We're ready whenever you are! Just let me know if you'll ever be in the area and we can call another 'meeting' to order! We can even change the venue if you wish. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 99 05:52:48 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Future targeting devices On 8/20/99 1:32PM, in message <000901beeb4b$2a8cd5e0$1afa1ed1@dzn.com>, "Allen Thomson" wrote: > > However, and kind of trivially, I've wondered if the muting of US national > aircraft insignia over the past decade or so might not be related to the > development of optical scene correlators that could be put into missiles and > other hostile machinery. > > > Ostensibly to reduce delectability visually, one of the biggest actual reasons is that it's cheaper to paint planes dull, unit morale and pride not being something that shows up on a balance sheet. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 23:35:56 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: A-12 Mike Thompson wrote: > Affirm...thought so. Weren't there only 2 built? Don't have a clue where > the other one is. > Normally it'd be at Wright Pat, but it's not. > > Mike Thompson There were 18 A-12/YF-12 made. 3 are on display at Palmdale, CA Lockheed Plant 7 Lost in accidents 8 on display at other locations: New York City Huntsville, AL St Paul, MN San Diego, CA Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Mobile, AL Seattle, WA Hill AFB, UT - -- Bob Norway Rockledge, Florida Home Page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5953/mypage.html ICQ# 3752712 *************************** Blackbird Association Member #1263 - -- 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, 21 Aug 1999 09:13:19 EDT From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Northwest get-together Off topic, Larry - Please use e-mail ! This kind of personal stuff wastes my time. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:21:28 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: A-12 Not meaning to nit-pick anyone here, just want to set the record straight: There were 18 non-SR-71 blackbirds built: 13 were A-12s (no back seat); 3 were YF-12As (radome where forward chine should be); and 2 were M/D-21s (D-21 on the back). YF-12 #60-6934 was written off after an accident in 1966; the rear half was used to make the last SR-71, #61-7981, and has been part of that airframe since 1968. 981 is on display at Hill AFB, UT. The "YF-12C" was nothing more than SR-71 #61-7951, loaned to NASA and painted in their colors. The 2 M/D-21s were never A-12s, but were built from the ground up to be ferry aircraft for the D-21. Locations of surviving airframes: A-12: 60-6924 Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA 60-6925 Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York NY 60-6927 Stored at Skunkworks, Palmdale 60-6930 US Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville AL 60-6931 Minnesota Air Nat'l Guard Museum, Minneapolis MN 60-6933 Aerospace Historical Center, San Diego CA 60-6937 Displayed at Skunkworks Plant #2, Palmdale 60-6938 USS Alabama Battleship Mem. Park, Mobile AL YF-12: 60-6935 USAF Museum, Wright-Pat AFB, OH M/D-21: 60-6940 Museum of Flight, Seattle WA - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum > Mike Thompson wrote: > > Affirm...thought so. Weren't there only 2 built? Don't have a clue where > > the other one is. > > Normally it'd be at Wright Pat, but it's not. > > > > Mike Thompson > > There were 18 A-12/YF-12 made. > > 3 are on display at Palmdale, CA Lockheed Plant > 7 Lost in accidents > 8 on display at other locations: > New York City > Huntsville, AL > St Paul, MN > San Diego, CA > Wright-Patterson AFB, OH > Mobile, AL > Seattle, WA > Hill AFB, UT > -- > Bob Norway > Rockledge, Florida > Home Page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5953/mypage.html > ICQ# 3752712 > *************************** > Blackbird Association > Member #1263 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:30:36 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Northwest get-together At 09:13 AM 08/21/1999 EDT, you wrote: >Off topic, Larry - Please use e-mail ! This kind of personal stuff wastes my >time. > > Jesus de Christo, aren't we getting a bit anal here? Aren't lots of the posts technically in the gray area? Isn't your request off topic? It too could have been made by an email. In light of Larry's excellent technical posts I see him as generally an quality addition to the list without implying any elitism. Hell we tolerated a whole lot of UFO posts till someone throttled Mr. Colvin. We are all human. (well, some of us may dispute this statement) I think we all can be reasonable and a bit tolerant and all get along here after the recent turn of events. Hopefully this thread will end here. May the spirit of Rodney King live on in this newslist. *grin* patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 19:58:51 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Faith versus evidence Larry Smith wrote, concerning space craft: > That is the problem isn't it! > > The "believers" believe UNTIL the claim is proven false. > > Others believe AFTER it is proven true, and NOT before. > > That is the fundamental difference that makes such discussions > impossible, to say the least. . . . Now my question is this: who does this differ from stealth? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:31:26 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence >Larry Smith wrote, concerning space craft: > >> That is the problem isn't it! >> >> The "believers" believe UNTIL the claim is proven false. >> >> Others believe AFTER it is proven true, and NOT before. >> >> That is the fundamental difference that makes such discussions >> impossible, to say the least. . . . > >Now my question is this: who does this differ from stealth? > >Jim Stevenson That's a fairly easy question to answer, and it has been covered before in this list, though not in this context. By stealth, we can only assume you mean methods of design and construction of aircraft or other military systems for minimizing exposure and/or signature to enemy sensors. Well, that's how the Joint Chiefs and Congress seem to be defining it. See, it's easy to prove that the signature of an aircraft can be significantly reduced using the methods applied to the F-117, B-2, A-12, etc. electromagnetic radiation is wonderfully predictable, and unlike some UFOs, strickly adheres to the laws of physics. The fairly elementary interactions between emitters, reflectors, and receivers of electromagnetic radiation are well documented in the open literature and a first year physics or computer science student would have no trouble simulating these interactions within even a Pentium-powered personal computer (right Larry? :P ). Because of the nature of electromagnetic radiation and the environment in which is is used for radar, there is very little that causes the model within a computer to deviate from experimental results developed in the real world. Stealth is well understood. Thankfully we do not live in times when it is generally beleived that the earth is flat or electromagnetic radiation is "magic". "UFOlogy", on the other hand, is not based on physical laws or empirical data. For the most part is based on perception, hearsay, and folklore. Many of the "researchers" in the field only propagate second hand reports, rather than verifiable fact. Connections are drawn between such diverse phenomena as "abductions", sightings of lights or objects, and patterns in crop fields. Never have I seen any documentaiton of what supposedly connects these things other than their unusuaul nature. To the best of my own knowledge there is no evidence to support the idea that "UFOs" are space craft (Jim's words, see above), or that they are piloted by beings from another planet. Could UFOs be one or more legitimate phenomena? Of course. Do UFOs merit further study? Certainly. I'm just waiting for serious researchers to devote time to either proving or disproving an actual thesis with real evidence. At any rate, UFOs are off-topic, and enough bandwidth has already been wasted on foolish claims that either microwave ovens are the tools of demons or that "stealth doesn't work" (it's the same argument to me). Discussions of UFO phenomena are definitely best held in other forums, IMHO. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0