From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #17 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 Thursday, February 24 2000 Volume 09 : Number 017 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: HAVE FLAG Anti-radiation missile Re: Anti-radiation missile RE: Anti-radiation missile Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] U.S./Mexico border & Caribbean Aerostats - radar platforms PLUS Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 100 06:37:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: HAVE FLAG On 2/18/00 6:15AM, in message <00021809151422.25560@weba8.iname.net>, george.allegrezza@altavista.net wrote: > Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > I was off the list for a few years. Did we ever get closure on what exactly > HAVE FLAG was? > > Thanks, > George > > Other than an Air Force tactical missile project, I don't think so. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:27:55 -0500 From: Jim Stevenson Subject: Anti-radiation missile Does anyone have information on the anti-radiation missile used in the Gulf War? Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:02:25 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Anti-radiation missile > Does anyone have information on the anti-radiation missile used in the Gulf > War? > > Jim > Which missile are you talking about? The AGM-88A/B HARM? The AGM-78D Standard? Or the AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow (which I believe was cancelled). Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:47:26 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Anti-radiation missile Don't forget the BAe ALARM that the British Tornados were using to knock out everything from microwave ovens to errr radars! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Sam Kaltsidis > Sent: 22 February 2000 17:02 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Anti-radiation missile > > > > Does anyone have information on the anti-radiation missile > used in the Gulf > > War? > > > > Jim > > > > Which missile are you talking about? The AGM-88A/B HARM? The > AGM-78D Standard? > Or the AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow (which I believe was cancelled). > > Sam > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:07:48 -0500 From: "James J. Bjaloncik" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 > Date: 21 Feb 00 14:02:45 PST > From: Nick > Subject: TR3 Photo? > > I read on this list a few months ago > that a European magazine had posted an > alleged photo of the TR3. > > I searched at the time, but could not > locate it. > > Someone else did and sent it, along with the > alleged unit patch (image) to me. I have no > idea as to the authenticity, but.... > > I have posted it on a page at: > > http://www.angelfire.com/de/deger/page7.html > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:20:09 -0500 (EST) > From: Sam Kaltsidis > Subject: Re: TR3 Photo? > > > I read on this list a few months ago > > that a European magazine had posted an > > alleged photo of the TR3. > > > > I searched at the time, but could not > > locate it. > > > > Someone else did and sent it, along with the > > alleged unit patch (image) to me. I have no > > idea as to the authenticity, but.... > > > > I have posted it on a page at: > > > > http://www.angelfire.com/de/deger/page7.html > > The picture is too messed up to be able to tell what the heck the pictured > object is. It is very heavily pixelated and GoatoShop(TM) may have been used to > create or alter it. The picture also had the heck compressed out of it so it is > impossible to say what is really shown in the picture. > > "I" suspect it was faked. > > Sam > Nick and Sam: That photo originally popped up in Britain's UFO MAGAZINE in 1996 (Vol.15, No.2, pg.43) as part of magazine editor Graham W.Birdsall's article on the "Black Triangle" Flap over Belgium in 1989-91. The photo was reproduced again in Vol.15, No.4 as part of an interview with a Belgian AF F-16 pilot who pursued several triangles. Neither photo appears to be as "doctored" as the one on the WEB site. The original photo is copyrighted by someone called Quest Picture Library (English?). Interestingly enough, a photo of an almost identical object, photographed over Tagresk, Russia in 1990 appears on p.47 of the Vol.15, No.2 issue. Best regards, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:50:41 -0800 From: "M. Studer" Subject: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] Hi All, I appreciate the discourse going on about stealth blimps. I've always been fascinated by LTA's and their possible use as a stealthy platform is something that's always in the back of my mind. IR signature from the lifting gas (be it helium or hydrogen) was an aspect that would be a serious detriment to either a strategic or tactical system. Would the use of an aerogell(SP?) insulator go long way in reducing the heat sig on something like this or is that wishful thinking? Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:47:31 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 > > Date: 21 Feb 00 14:02:45 PST > > From: Nick > > Subject: TR3 Photo? > > > > I read on this list a few months ago > > that a European magazine had posted an > > alleged photo of the TR3. > > > > I searched at the time, but could not > > locate it. > > > > Someone else did and sent it, along with the > > alleged unit patch (image) to me. I have no > > idea as to the authenticity, but.... > > > > I have posted it on a page at: > > > > http://www.angelfire.com/de/deger/page7.html > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:20:09 -0500 (EST) > > From: Sam Kaltsidis > > Subject: Re: TR3 Photo? > > > > > I read on this list a few months ago > > > that a European magazine had posted an > > > alleged photo of the TR3. > > > > > > I searched at the time, but could not > > > locate it. > > > > > > Someone else did and sent it, along with the > > > alleged unit patch (image) to me. I have no > > > idea as to the authenticity, but.... > > > > > > I have posted it on a page at: > > > > > > http://www.angelfire.com/de/deger/page7.html > > > > The picture is too messed up to be able to tell what the heck the pictured > > object is. It is very heavily pixelated and GoatoShop(TM) may have been used to > > create or alter it. The picture also had the heck compressed out of it so it is > > impossible to say what is really shown in the picture. > > > > "I" suspect it was faked. > > > > Sam > > > Nick and Sam: That photo originally popped up in Britain's UFO MAGAZINE > in 1996 (Vol.15, No.2, pg.43) as part of magazine editor Graham > W.Birdsall's article on the "Black Triangle" Flap over Belgium in > 1989-91. The photo was reproduced again in Vol.15, No.4 as part of an > interview with a Belgian AF F-16 pilot who pursued several triangles. > Neither photo appears to be as "doctored" as the one on the WEB site. > The original photo is copyrighted by someone called Quest Picture > Library (English?). Interestingly enough, a photo of an almost identical > object, photographed over Tagresk, Russia in 1990 appears on p.47 of the > Vol.15, No.2 issue. > > Best regards, > > Jim > Suspect picture from a very suspect source. Even if such an aircraft existed it would never fly over populated areas and allow itself to be pursued by air defense forces and be photographed. Skeptical Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:08:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] > Hi All, > > I appreciate the discourse going on about stealth blimps. I've always > been fascinated by LTA's and their possible use as a stealthy platform is > something that's always in the back of my mind. > > IR signature from the lifting gas (be it helium or hydrogen) was an > aspect that would be a serious detriment to either a strategic or tactical > system. Would the use of an aerogell(SP?) insulator go long way in reducing > the heat sig on something like this or is that wishful thinking? > > Marc > Feasibility aside, blimps are very sensitive to weather conditions and are unable to operate from bases that are not specially manned and equipped to handle blimps. On top of those problems it would be very difficult to mask the blimp's engines and eliminate the blimp's IR, optical and acoustic signatures. There is also the question of fuel capacity, power for the payload and payload capacity. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:02:20 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] From: Sam Kaltsidis | Feasibility aside, blimps are very sensitive to weather conditions and are | unable to operate from bases that are not specially manned and equipped to | handle blimps. Sam I have to take issue with you here - in the nicest possible way of course :) Are you saying that it's not feasible to build an LTA craft that's stealthy ? If so, that's a POV I find absolutely astonishing. As far as weather is concerned -any a/c has its limitations - Rotary wings for example have serious altitude, endurance, weather and speed limits. I don't hear anyone calling their feasibility into question. I don't need to remind you that it was Zeppelin who started the first passenger airline (DELAG) nor that it operated scheduled flights to North & South America - in great comfort decades before an HTA craft could hope to. Also, during WWII US Navy blimps served as anti-sub escorts for shipping in all weather conditions. The Graf Zep flew more than 1 million miles and so on. Flying an airship is very different to flying a HTA craft according to the pilots I've interviewed. WRT to being stealthy: a blimp operating without a transponder would need to point its nose or tail towards the radar source so that ATC can pick them up with the 'blade flash' from the props. Ask any airship pilot or ATC personnel who have experience of dealing with blimps for confirmation. Blimps have a low RCS. I've flown in a couple of blimps - one was operating from a specially equipped base - the other was not. Even if what you say about operational problems was true - are you saying that F-117s or B-2s can operate from anywhere with no specialist personnel or equipment ? |On top of those problems it would be very difficult to mask |the blimp's engines and eliminate the blimp's IR, optical and acoustic |signatures. Why would an airship pose any more problems than a HTA craft ? US Navy rigids of the 30s had internal powerplants - so doesn't that reduce IR sig ? Airships don't need engines to remain airborne and so don't need such powerful engines as a comparable HTA craft - nor do they need to run their engines all the time - doesn't that give them a lower acoustic sig ? | There is also the question of fuel capacity, power for the payload and payload capacity. Because its uses both aerostatic and aerodynamic lift - an airship has longer endurance and uses less fuel than a HTA craft - so I don't see why fuel is the problem. As far as electrical power - why should that cause a problem - you've lost me. Payload capacity is simply a question of what job you want the LTA craft to perform. LockMart and others would disagree with you over payload, otherwise the Aerocraft would be a waste of effort. Whatever way you look at it - a LTA AWACS type a/c for instance would be a formidable weapon and greatly improve capability by virtue of much larger arrays and duration of days rather than hours. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:49:28 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] > From: Sam Kaltsidis > > | Feasibility aside, blimps are very sensitive to weather conditions and are > | unable to operate from bases that are not specially manned and equipped to > | handle blimps. > > Sam I have to take issue with you here - in the nicest possible way of > course :) I meant that I was not going to question the feasibility of stealth blimps just raise some questions. > > Are you saying that it's not feasible to build an LTA craft that's stealthy > ? If so, that's a POV > I find absolutely astonishing. No, that's not what I said... I just pointed out a few weaknesses... not an exhaustive list of course. > > As far as weather is concerned -any a/c has its limitations - Rotary wings > for example have serious altitude, endurance, weather and speed limits. I > don't hear anyone calling their feasibility into question. > > I don't need to remind you that it was Zeppelin who started the first > passenger airline (DELAG) nor that it operated scheduled flights to North & > South America - in great comfort decades before an HTA craft could hope to. Zeppelins WERE NOT BLIMPS!!!! They were rigid dirigibles! They were using hydrogen and this is why the Hindenburg blew up. Blimps are semi-rigid dirigibles and in some cases borderline non-rigid dirigibles. Semi-rigid dirigibles have a lot more limitations compared to rigid ships. Pardon me for shouting. > > Also, during WWII US Navy blimps served as anti-sub escorts for shipping in > all weather conditions. The Graf Zep flew more than 1 million miles and so > on. Flying an airship is very different to flying a HTA craft according to > the pilots I've interviewed. I know my WWII history. In fact I participated in writing a game on WWII, a terribly historically inaccurate game for the masses, but I wrote one nonetheless. > > WRT to being stealthy: a blimp operating without a transponder would need > to point its > nose or tail towards the radar source so that ATC can pick them up with the > 'blade flash' from the props. Ask any airship pilot or ATC personnel who > have experience of dealing with blimps for > confirmation. Blimps have a low RCS. You are talking about ATC radars though. A bistatic radar or an LF radar should be able to detect a blimp quite easily. > > I've flown in a couple of blimps - one was operating from a specially > equipped base - the other was not. Even if what you say about operational > problems was true - are you saying that F-117s or B-2s can operate from > anywhere with no specialist personnel or equipment ? > > |On top of those problems it would be very difficult to mask > |the blimp's engines and eliminate the blimp's IR, optical and acoustic > |signatures. > > Why would an airship pose any more problems than a HTA craft ? US Navy > rigids of the 30s had internal powerplants - so doesn't that reduce IR sig ? Not necessarily. > > Airships don't need engines to remain airborne and so don't need such > powerful engines as a comparable HTA craft - nor do they need to run their > engines all the time - doesn't that give them a lower acoustic sig ? They do need to use their engines to remain on station however if that is what they are intended for. Maintaining you position at ~70,000 ft could be rather complicated depending on whether you can avoid the jet stream and other weather phenomena up there. IIRC, the LockMart press release itself indicated that high-altitude weather research had to be done to determine whether or not a blimp could operate safely at that altitude. > > | There is also the question of fuel capacity, power for the payload and > payload capacity. > > Because its uses both aerostatic and aerodynamic lift - an airship has > longer endurance and uses > less fuel than a HTA craft - so I don't see why fuel is the problem. As far > as electrical power - why > should that cause a problem - you've lost me. However the LockMart press release talked about remaining on station for weeks or months which might require extensive use of the engines for remaining on station or the maneuvering required to perform the ship's mission. > > Payload capacity is simply a question of what job you want the LTA craft to > perform. LockMart > and others would disagree with you over payload, otherwise the Aerocraft > would be a waste of > effort. Yes, but we are not talking about the Aerocraft here, were are talking about stealth blimps. The Aerocraft is intended to replace surface cargo ships and has a very substantial payload capacity. > > Whatever way you look at it - a LTA AWACS type a/c for instance would be a > formidable weapon and greatly improve capability by virtue of much larger > arrays and duration of days rather than hours. Blimps are already used as radar platforms with reasonable success however blimps have not been used in the environment proposed by LockMart which could make them inexpensive satellite replacements (which I believe is what the press release was all about). > > Best > > David > > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:52:38 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] >> From: Sam Kaltsidis >> >> | Feasibility aside, blimps are very sensitive to weather conditions and are >> | unable to operate from bases that are not specially manned and equipped to >> | handle blimps. >> >> Sam I have to take issue with you here - in the nicest possible way of >> course :) >I meant that I was not going to question the feasibility of stealth blimps >just raise some questions. Good discussion. I think that many of the problems associated with these things can be solved with todays technology, including speed. There is also some synergy with other technology that we haven't tapped in this discussion. >> >> Are you saying that it's not feasible to build an LTA craft that's stealthy >> ? If so, that's a POV >> I find absolutely astonishing. >No, that's not what I said... I just pointed out a few weaknesses... not an >exhaustive list of course. >> >> As far as weather is concerned -any a/c has its limitations - Rotary wings >> for example have serious altitude, endurance, weather and speed limits. I >> don't hear anyone calling their feasibility into question. >> >> I don't need to remind you that it was Zeppelin who started the first >> passenger airline (DELAG) nor that it operated scheduled flights to North & >> South America - in great comfort decades before an HTA craft could hope to. >Zeppelins WERE NOT BLIMPS!!!! They were rigid dirigibles! They were using >hydrogen and this is why the Hindenburg blew up. Blimps are semi-rigid >dirigibles and in some cases borderline non-rigid dirigibles. Semi-rigid >dirigibles have a lot more limitations compared to rigid ships. I don't think that David was trying to be dogmatic in his use of the term 'blimp'. I think David is merely speaking of a future system that would take any structural form necessary to perform its mission. I'm sure he'll correct me if I misstated his position. David was not speaking of SSTO blimps, but in a related sense, there has been some conjecture on the part of the laser lightcraft project group at RPI that they could get a structural benefit in an EM propelled SSTO craft by using internal gas pressure. This is not to say that there would be no hard structure, but that gas pressure would be providing part of the rigidity. This is an interesting concept to explore. There are MANY other interesting synergies with blimps for high speed as well! I'd rather not mention them as I'd like to study them myself. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:52:58 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] > >> From: Sam Kaltsidis > >> > >> | Feasibility aside, blimps are very sensitive to weather conditions and are > >> | unable to operate from bases that are not specially manned and equipped to > >> | handle blimps. > >> > >> Sam I have to take issue with you here - in the nicest possible way of > >> course :) > > >I meant that I was not going to question the feasibility of stealth blimps > >just raise some questions. > > Good discussion. > > I think that many of the problems associated with these things can be solved > with todays technology, including speed. > > There is also some synergy with other technology that we haven't tapped > in this discussion. > > >> > >> Are you saying that it's not feasible to build an LTA craft that's stealthy > >> ? If so, that's a POV > >> I find absolutely astonishing. > > >No, that's not what I said... I just pointed out a few weaknesses... not an > >exhaustive list of course. > > >> > >> As far as weather is concerned -any a/c has its limitations - Rotary wings > >> for example have serious altitude, endurance, weather and speed limits. I > >> don't hear anyone calling their feasibility into question. > >> > >> I don't need to remind you that it was Zeppelin who started the first > >> passenger airline (DELAG) nor that it operated scheduled flights to North & > >> South America - in great comfort decades before an HTA craft could hope to. > > >Zeppelins WERE NOT BLIMPS!!!! They were rigid dirigibles! They were using > >hydrogen and this is why the Hindenburg blew up. Blimps are semi-rigid > >dirigibles and in some cases borderline non-rigid dirigibles. Semi-rigid > >dirigibles have a lot more limitations compared to rigid ships. > > I don't think that David was trying to be dogmatic in his use of the term > 'blimp'. > > I think David is merely speaking of a future system that would take any > structural form necessary to perform its mission. I'm sure he'll correct me > if I misstated his position. > > David was not speaking of SSTO blimps, but in a related sense, there has been > some conjecture on the part of the laser lightcraft project group at RPI that > they could get a structural benefit in an EM propelled SSTO craft by using > internal gas pressure. This is not to say that there would be no hard > structure, but that gas pressure would be providing part of the rigidity. > This is an interesting concept to explore. > > There are MANY other interesting synergies with blimps for high speed as well! > > I'd rather not mention them as I'd like to study them myself. > > Larry > You have made some very good points. Advanced technology may be able to compensate for some of the weaknesses I pointed out and some I didn't. Sam PS Larry: may I contact you privately to ask you some questions regarding SSTO blims as well as a couple of other matters? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:29:37 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: U.S./Mexico border & Caribbean Aerostats - radar platforms PLUS < http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/tars.htm > Tethered Aerostat Radar System - United States Nuclear Forces "Intelligence sources reported dramatic decreases in the amount of airborne drug traffic since the first Southwest border antidrug balloon went up above Fort Huachuca, AZ, in 1987. In a September 1990 letter, written shortly before funding was secured for the four aerostat balloons in question, Stephen Duncan, DOD's coordinator for drug enforcement policy, called the aerostats the `most cost-effective counternarcotics detection and monitoring asset.' By the time that half the land border, the New Mexico-Arizona-California stretch, was covered by aerostats, few drug aircraft tried to penetrate that half of the border." A phone switch manager stated that aerostats also monitor cellular phone transmissions. These conversations help to track down and arrest drug kingpins along the U.S./Mexico border and as far away as Acapulco. Terry P.S.: In 1991 I took a college class in Harvard Graphics. Our teacher was a peach and allowed us to prepare slides on a subject we were interested in so the 10 to 12 students were subjected to UFOs. I began with a group of largely skeptical people and wound up with grudgingly "converted" people after almost five months of background material. My eight or nine lessons began with an introductory and ended with a hands-on observation and filling out of the "classic" questionnaire from Air Force Project Blue Book. The latter was done by comparing our local aerostat balloon as observed from my house (close by) and from the college parking lot (a few miles away). - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:51:12 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re:Stealth Dirigable and areogells [was Re: Heat Capacity?] > >David was not speaking of SSTO blimps, but in a related sense, there has been >some conjecture on the part of the laser lightcraft project group at RPI that >they could get a structural benefit in an EM propelled SSTO craft by using >internal gas pressure. This is not to say that there would be no hard >structure, but that gas pressure would be providing part of the rigidity. >This is an interesting concept to explore. > >There are MANY other interesting synergies with blimps for high speed as well! > >I'd rather not mention them as I'd like to study them myself. > >Larry True, but this is straying pretty far from the original flying-triangle stealth blimp theories. 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 Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #16 >> > >> Nick and Sam: That photo originally popped up in Britain's UFO MAGAZINE >> in 1996 (Vol.15, No.2, pg.43) as part of magazine editor Graham >> W.Birdsall's article on the "Black Triangle" Flap over Belgium in >> 1989-91. The photo was reproduced again in Vol.15, No.4 as part of an >> interview with a Belgian AF F-16 pilot who pursued several triangles. >> Neither photo appears to be as "doctored" as the one on the WEB site. >> The original photo is copyrighted by someone called Quest Picture >> Library (English?). Interestingly enough, a photo of an almost identical >> object, photographed over Tagresk, Russia in 1990 appears on p.47 of the >> Vol.15, No.2 issue. >> I'm fairly certain that the photo predates that in the public eyes, since I recall seeing it in a UFO book or magazine in 1995. There are a number of photos and video of very similar objects floating around on the web from all over the world. > > >Suspect picture from a very suspect source. Even if such an aircraft >existed it >would never fly over populated areas and allow itself to be pursued by air >defense forces and be photographed. > >Skeptical Sam The F-117, U-2, SR-71 and even Tacit Blue were all flying over populated areas and photographed long before their public disclosure. Any high-speed aircraft would almost *have* to overfly populated areas at some point during flight test, as would any long endurance vehicle. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #17 ******************************** 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