From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #100 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 Tuesday, August 24 1999 Volume 08 : Number 100 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Re: TLC-Mission: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission/SW) Re: A-12 Re: Faith versus evidence FWD: (SW/TLCB) Re: Birdwatcher Re: Faith versus evidence Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: PERSONAL: Kuwait bound Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence Re: Faith versus evidence *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:35:42 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... You are absolutely correct, Greg. This topic was a spinoff from the series of Corso critiques exchanged on the IUFO and UASR lists. Corso wrote _The Day After Roswell_, published in early 1997. George, got your message, literally. BTW, I'm off on 28 August to work in Kuwait. Terry - -------------------------- gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: > > I've tried not to say anything after the last little disaster about something > posted that was off-topic... > > I, too, could do without these posts, Terry. After the charter was recently > rewritten, I was kinda hoping George would say something to you, off or on the > list. > > George? Insert Moderator opinion here..... > > Greg W. > > -----Original Message----- > From: at INTERNET > Sent: August 17, 1999 11:41 PM > To: Larry Smith at INTERNET; > "skunk-works@netwrx1.com" at INTERNET > Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... > > Larry, that sounds pretty hostile to me, as intended I s'pose. > > I know I've been beating a dead horse with this message. Yes, > I'm violating the Skunk-Works list charter and really have no > compelling logic or reasoned excuse to make it more palatable. > > I'm rather surprised no one has flamed me either privately or on > the list. > > Best wishes, > > Terry > > ----------------- > Larry Smith wrote: > > > > Terry, forget about any response from me! > > > > You don't seem to respect the desires of the skunk.works list > > at all! > > > > I personally find your repeated posts on this subject bothering! > > > > I have a suspicion others do to! > > > > Larry > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * > 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) - -- 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 23:36:03 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... How do I respond to such logic? I can't without seeming a rude true believer. The UFO discommunity harms the efforts of those trying to discern the pepper from the fly poop. I don't perceive myself as a spammer. Mark Twain must have said something about "a true gentleman" and I really see the list charter as vague where reports of triangular objects are concerned. What does the latest list charter say about the latest black aircraft programs, misidentified phenomena, and unknowns due to insufficient data? Terry - --------- 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. > > GregD > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > %% %% > %% Reality is for People Who %% > %% Can't Handle Simulation %% > %% %% > %% habu@airmail.net %% > %% habu@cyberramp.net %% > %% srcrown@flash.net %% > %% gdfieser@hti.com %% > %% %% > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - -- 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 23:36:10 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR/SW) Re(34.5): ROSWELL SPACECRAFT ... Mary, I liked your response best. Again, you and others are correct that the list charter is very specific with no loose ends flying in the wind. I prefer viewing my approach to mailing list culture as "man bites dog." Cross-posting tends to mix cultures and isn't the PC word of the decade diversity? We've come a long way from the days of race relations. Perhaps new subscribers to this list and others were encouraged to join based on the e-mails I've cross-posted (maybe not). I really must stay away from lists beginning with the letter "S". Some on the Skeptic list give me hell when I cross-post fortean (paranormal and anomalies) e-mails. Thank you for listening. Terry - ----------------- Mary Shafer wrote: > 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...." - -- 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: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:20:33 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: TLC-Mission: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission/SW) Re: A-12 Skunkers, what say ye? Terry...There is also an SR-71 hanging over the lobby at the Air and Space Museum in Hutchinson, KS. How come it is not listed? BTW, the museum just got the Mercury capsule that was pulled from the Atlantic last month.....Best Museum next to Wright-Pat, in my opinion Larry - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * 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: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:07:35 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence Larry Smith wrote: >> 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. . . . Jim Stevenson replies: >Now my question is this: who does this differ from stealth? Quite correct Jim! But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with respect to the following: 1. You don't believe in physics. 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics. 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application of the theory of stealth technology. If you don't pick 1, there is of course groundwork for discussion, as well as proving your point, in my opinion. But this may not be the correct forum. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:51:55 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (SW/TLCB) Re: Birdwatcher - ---Original Message----- From: Allen To: Terry W. Colvin Subject: Birdwatcher >I'm not quite sure of the operating range of the 618T but it was something >like 2-32 Mhz in 1 kilohertz increments. - ---------- Collins Radio (Later Rockwell-Collins) 618T Series Specifications: (I always wanted to know which Congressmans' wife held stock in National Bolt & Screw, because Collins rigs had millions of them nitnoi buggers...) 618(T, T-2)models: Transceiver, auto-tune; 2-30 MHz, 1 KHz steps, USB/LSB/CW/AM, 400 Watts PEP (SSB), 125 Watts (AM/CW), 115 VAC 400Hz, 3-Phase @ 1 KVA, and 1-phase @ 160VA and 27 VDC @ 4.5 Amp. - ------------ 618T-3 model: Same output parameters, except it consumed less power: 115 VAC 400Hz, 1-Phase @ 100VA, and 27 VDC @ 3.5 Amp. Chris Jeppeson - -- 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: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:17:29 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence > > Larry Smith wrote: >>> 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. . . . > > Jim Stevenson replies: >>Now my question is this: who does this differ from stealth? > > Quite correct Jim! > > But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with > respect to the following: > > 1. You don't believe in physics. > 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics. > 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application > of the theory of stealth technology. > > If you don't pick 1, there is of course groundwork for discussion, as > well as proving your point, in my opinion. But this may not be the > correct forum. > > Larry > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:25:29 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Faith versus evidence Larry Smith wrote: > But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with > respect to the following: > > 1. You don't believe in physics. Not true. I do believe in physics. > 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics. I believe the THEORY is valid. > 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application > of the theory of stealth technology. This is where the faith comes in. Some on this list have accepted, as a matter of faith (it has to be unless they have run tests themselves that are consistent with good science) that the F-117 works. I have always reserved the right to say "show me." Prove to me that it works. The military hides behind classification. Who can argue? The Air Force had four prototypes, the two YF-22s and the two YF-23s. Neither was even tested for stealth. Now we have the Air Force wanting to go into production on the F-22 before any stealth testing, much less a complete test of stealth, is done. I think it would be reasonable to have a valid test before we commit to production. As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:30:30 -0700 From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence >Larry Smith wrote: >>> That is the problem isn't it! >>> >>> The "believers" believe UNTIL the claim is proven false. There is a subgroup to this one. That is, some "believers" faith is so strong that even after evidence is presented to the contrary, it is discounted and picked apart such that there are still a few threads to hang on to. So they go right on believing while the rest of the world is satisfied. td ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:25:56 -0700 (PDT) From: --TIGGER-- Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence You made a couple of assumptions there Jim, 1. They had jammer support. Av Weak says they were SUPPOSED to when 806 was shot down, but possibly didn't. Again, it's Av Weak. 2. You are assuming that the F-117A was shot down with it's stealth capabilities in perfect working order. There are probable ways (Note the word probible, not possible) that the -117 could have had it's stealth capabilities degraded allowing enemy tracking and fire. Or it could have been caught in one of those rare moments where it is extremly vunerable. I'm not saying that the post Gulf War USAF line of the "All mighty and powerful stealth technology" is completly true. I don't think it should be disregarded either. Somewhere in between is the truth I bet. I'm not saying what you said was wrong, I'm just saying that certain assumptions had to be true for your theory to be valid. - -Kevin Helm PS-I don't know when, but I am trying to get my new URL and new stuff up on my site. All will be happy. PSS-Oh, about the 2nd shot up F-117.....if that is true, the USAF DELIBERATLY sent up a fake one b/c there were 24 F-117A's that returned to Holloman. (11,11, and 2 over three days) That fact that 24 returned contridicts the shot up information. ------------------------------Kevin Helm------------------------------ | Homepage: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~khelm | _______ F-117A Site: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~khelm/Shabah.html ______ On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest > adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess > of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly > how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is? > Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:31:52 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence >Larry Smith wrote: > >> But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with >> respect to the following: >> >> 1. You don't believe in physics. > >Not true. I do believe in physics. > >> 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics. > >I believe the THEORY is valid. > >> 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application >> of the theory of stealth technology. > >This is where the faith comes in. Some on this list have accepted, as a >matter of faith (it has to be unless they have run tests themselves that >are consistent with good science) that the F-117 works. Which I know some of us have. And I know that there are persons on this list who have had exposure to the data that Jim beleives is being "hidden behind classification". And of those who have seen the data, or the models, all think that "stealth works". Of course, a great deal of the data that Jim seems to think is classified is in the open literature where anyone can find it. > >I have always reserved the right to say "show me." Prove to me that it >works. The military hides behind classification. Who can argue? At this point I doubt that there is anything that the AF or anyone else can show Jim that will put his argument to rest. Jim's faith is in that it doesn't work, that the military is lying to him, etc. There does not seem to be anything to sway him in that direction, not even good physics. Jim, in short, is much like a die-hard UFO fanatic. > >The Air Force had four prototypes, the two YF-22s and the two YF-23s. >Neither was even tested for stealth. Now we have the Air Force wanting >to go into production on the F-22 before any stealth testing, much less >a complete test of stealth, is done. I don't see how you can make this statement after your bold assertion that stealth test data is hidden behind classification. You say that neither was "tested for stealth", while there are a few technicians at the Helendale, Tejon Ranch, Groom, and Holloman ranges that would disagree with you. In addition there are a number of expenditures in the F-22 program that would strongly indicate that it was indeed RCS tested in flight during the ATF fly-off. >As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest >adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess >of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly >how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is? > 1. Comparing an F-117 to an F-16 is silly. They do not operate in the same threat environment, perform similar missions, or sue similar tactics. You might as well be comparing the F-117 to a KC-10. 2. Appearances can be deceiving. As far as anyone who bothered to look into that rumor can tell, there was no other F-117 damaged by enemy fire. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:11:59 -0700 From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence This Av Week some speak of, is this Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine? Kurt - --TIGGER-- wrote: > > 1. They had jammer support. Av Weak says they were SUPPOSED to when ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:36:00 -0700 (PDT) From: --TIGGER-- Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence Yes. Av Weak, AW&ST, Av Leak, etc...... - -Kevin Helm On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, INFORMATION RESTRICTED wrote: > This Av Week some speak of, is this Aviation Week and Space Technology > magazine? > > Kurt > --TIGGER-- wrote: > > 1. They had jammer support. Av Weak says they were SUPPOSED to when ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:49:01 -0700 From: "Dean A. Batha" Subject: Re: PERSONAL: Kuwait bound Terry, I see you're still serving our country. For that, I salute you. I served in the U.S. Air Force from 1978 until 1988 and then in the Air National Guard for six additional years. I was stationed in Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and Okinawa, Japan. I attained the rank of Staff Sergeant (E5) and worked both as an F-15 avionics technician and later as a weather forecaster. I support you and wish you well. I hope that when your upcoming tour of duty is over, you'll return to this list. I (and I'm sure many others) will miss you. Good Luck, Dean A. Batha dabatha@pacbell.net "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > I'll be unsubbing on 25 or 26 August. On 28 August I travel to Kuwait. > My job will be communications support to U.S. and Allied military > forces in the region. > > My mailing address is: > Terry W. Colvin > ITT/FSIC > Unit 69905 > APO AE 09889-9905 > > Private e-mail access is an open question. > > Terry > > -- > 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: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:20:47 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence At 07:25 PM 08/23/1999 -0400, you wrote: I believe the most important point Jim makes is: ....snip...Who can argue?....snip.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:20:04 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence Kevin Helm wrote: > You made a couple of assumptions there Jim, > > 1. They had jammer support. Av Weak says they were SUPPOSED to when 806 > was shot down, but possibly didn't. Again, it's Av Weak. I have this information from some other source in the Air Force that the F-117s definitely had jammer support. Since their comment is an admission against interest, I tend to accept it. > > 2. You are assuming that the F-117A was shot down with it's stealth > capabilities in perfect working order. There are probable ways (Note the > word probible, not possible) that the -117 could have had it's stealth > capabilities degraded allowing enemy tracking and fire. Or it could have > been caught in one of those rare moments where it is extremly vunerable. Well, that is simply my point: can this theory of stealth ever be implemented perfectly. >[snip] > I'm not saying what you said was wrong, I'm just saying that certain > assumptions had to be true for your theory to be valid. > I don't really have a theory. I simply want to see an acceptable demonstration that the theory works in practice. A classic example is the Air Force's failure to demonstrate the range of the F-22's supercruise ability. I suspect that it is not significantly longer than the F-15s. > -Kevin Helm > > PS-I don't know when, but I am trying to get my new URL and new stuff up > on my site. All will be happy. > > PSS-Oh, about the 2nd shot up F-117.....if that is true, the USAF > DELIBERATLY sent up a fake one b/c there were 24 F-117A's that returned to > Holloman. (11,11, and 2 over three days) That fact that 24 returned > contridicts the shot up information. I only said one got show down. The second one got shot up. That only illustrates the lack of immunity that stealth was suppose to give it. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:31:05 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence >>Larry Smith wrote: >> >>> But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with >>> respect to the following: >>> >>> 1. You don't believe in physics. Jim Stevenson responded: >> >>Not true. I do believe in physics. >> >>> 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics. >> >>I believe the THEORY is valid. >> >>> 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application >>> of the theory of stealth technology. >> >>This is where the faith comes in. Some on this list have accepted, as a >>matter of faith (it has to be unless they have run tests themselves that >>are consistent with good science) that the F-117 works. > > > Which I know some of us have. And I know that there are persons on > this list who have had exposure to the data that Jim beleives is > being "hidden behind classification". > And of those who have seen the data, or the models, all think that > "stealth works". > > Of course, a great deal of the data that Jim seems to think is > classified is in the open literature where anyone can find it. The re-publication of a test that does not stand up to the rigors of the scientific method does not make it valid. >> >>I have always reserved the right to say "show me." Prove to me that it >>works. The military hides behind classification. Who can argue? > > At this point I doubt that there is anything that the AF or anyone > else can show Jim that will put his argument to rest. Jim's faith is > in that it doesn't work, that the military is lying to him, etc. > There does not seem to be anything to sway him in that direction, not > even good physics. I don't have faith that it does not work. That is not a matter of faith. I reserve judgment until I see some evidence. Statements that it works are not evidence. > Jim, in short, is much like a die-hard UFO fanatic. On the contrary, a UFO fanatic is one who asserts that something is true without proof. I view asserters that these stealth aircraft will work as advertised just as I do the UFO fanatic: give me the evidence, not just your assertions. > >> >>The Air Force had four prototypes, the two YF-22s and the two YF-23s. >>Neither was even tested for stealth. Now we have the Air Force wanting >>to go into production on the F-22 before any stealth testing, much less >>a complete test of stealth, is done. > > I don't see how you can make this statement after your bold assertion > that stealth test data is hidden behind classification. You say that > neither was "tested for stealth", while there are a few technicians > at the Helendale, Tejon Ranch, Groom, and Holloman ranges that would > disagree with you. I would be most interested in getting the name of ANYONE who can tell me that the YF-22 and YF-23 were tested for stealth. That would also be a complete surprise to the ATF program manager. > In addition there are a number of expenditures in > the F-22 program that would strongly indicate that it was indeed RCS > tested in flight during the ATF fly-off. Again, I am open to change, provided the evidence is there. But the program manager of the YF-22 and YF-23 said there was no testing of either of these two airplanes and the current deputy program manager for the F-22 agreed. But, hey, you may know something they don't. That is the beauty of evidence. > > >>As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest >>adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess >>of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly >>how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is? >> > > 1. Comparing an F-117 to an F-16 is silly. They do not operate in the > same threat environment, perform similar missions, or sue similar > tactics. You might as well be comparing the F-117 to a KC-10. > 2. Appearances can be deceiving. As far as anyone who bothered to > look into that rumor can tell, there was no other F-117 damaged by > enemy fire. They flew in the same environment and at the same altitudes. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #100 ********************************* 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