From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #31 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 Sunday, April 16 2000 Volume 09 : Number 031 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #30 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 (Lasing the night away) Re: Acquired aircraft Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #30 Re: White Triangles Re: YF-110,YF-113 Re: YF-110,YF-113 Re: YF-110,YF-113 Re: White Triangles Re: YF-110,YF-113 Thank you was Re: OT: engineering slang "unobtanium" Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 Re: Acquired aircraft Re: White Triangles Re: (fwd) Area 51: Reveille Peak, new viewpoint for both Groom and Papoose Lake (9-4-99) Black Spot? Fast Mover? Re: etymology of "unobtainium" Re: (fwd) Area 51: Triangular aircraft sighted, radio transmiss *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:01:26 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #30 At 07:55 PM 4/15/00 -0500, you wrote: >skunk-works-digest Saturday, April 15 2000 Volume 09 : Number 030 > > > > Index of this digest by subject: >*************************************************** >Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 >RE: Acquired aircraft >YF-110,YF-113 >Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 >Re: YF-110,YF-113 >Re: YF-110,YF-113 >-117 in the 60's/Companion Laser designator >F117 Upgrades >Re: Acquired aircraft >Re: YF-110,YF-113 >Re: -117 in the 60's/Companion Laser designator >RE: White Triangle >Re: OT: engineering slang "unobtanium" >*************************************************** > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:15:04 -0400 (EDT) >From: Sam Kaltsidis >Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 > > > At 02:45 PM 4/14/00 -0500, Someone wrote: > > > > > > >During the 1970s and 1980s, numerical designations for captured or > > >clandestinely obtained foreign aircraft and U.S. "black" projects were > > >assigned numerical designations on a chronological basis by the Flight > > >Records Group at Norton AFB, Calif., hence the F-117 stealth fighter and > > >other classified, U.S.-built projects appears in the same sequence as > > >re-designated Soviet aircraft. > > > > > > This of course is the official obfuscation, and of course we are all > > zomibies and believe everything told us by official sources :) > > > > As I said, the story doesn't wring out, because my friend Dave Weber at > > davweber@gte.net, worked on casting the handles for the F117 circa > > 1968 -1969. He can provide more details as to the blueprints, who > > provided them (an unusual story as it was some "Oil Company"). > > >Your friend either belongs in a federal penitentiary or a mental hospital. Interesting comment of yours. Are you a gov'ment spook? > > > > And hasn't anyone's eyebrows been raised by the video footage of F117 > > attacks on Baghadad. It was a two craft operation, one LASED the target, > > while the other let loose a missle, and in one released footage you can > > hear the conversation between the targeting aircraft and the delivery > craft. > > >A missile? F-117s carried LGBs not AGMs. Conversation huh? Lemme get this >straight there was a conversation over the target area despite strict >orders to >maintain radio silence for the duration of the mission? Use of radio >communications would have defeated any stealth advantages the F-117 might >have >had. Yup, watch enough footage of raids on Baghdad and y ou can pick up a lot. As regards Radio Communications, I would assume it depends on the frequency used and the signal strength. Short range communications, low signal strength, when on the final bombing run and over target don't compromise the mission. The bombs and missles have done that. I feel inclined to ask my question again. > > > But what interests me more than anything, is that the targeting aircraft > > "hoveres" as evidenced by the fact that there was no change in angle, > depth > > perception or anything else as the targeting aircraft LASED its > target. In > > other words the targeting aircraft is quite obviously in a "hover" mode. > > >Haven't you heard of realtime image stabilization, image filtering and image >processing? Besides the pentagon would never have cleared that video for >public >release if there was the slightest chance it might reveal the existence of an >obviously top secret asset? Yep, but there is still change in depth, angle and perception. And wouldn't the Pentagon have cleared such stuff, when it rightfully estimates the attention span and perception of the public, and they of course have help from the likes of folk like you, that resort to ridicule and ad hominem. > > > > When other aircraft are used as targeting craft, such as the F111 (not > used > > in Baghad) you can see movement in the video, in other words the craft and > > its camera are obviously moving, as there is a constant and gradual change > > in resolution, perception and angle, but not in the F117 attacks on > Baghdad. > > >The F-117 most likely uses digital video while the F-111 does not. You can do >just about anything with DV. And one can put a spin on anything to explain it away as well. Problem is the damaging evidence is already out in the public, it just takes perceptive eyes, and questioning, inquiring minds. > > > > Seems to me then, that this esoteric craft has a lot more technology > > wrapped up in it, than its design, paint and material construction. > > > > Let's hear some more official "explanations". > > > > >I just rejected all your arguments without even trying and I don't even >work for >the government, actually I do, but they don't know it yet. You can, and obviously will reject anything that doesn't fit within in your tight package, your narrow recall of reality, what you think is or should be, but rejecting something doesn't mean that you are correct, anymore than me bringing attention to some details means that there is something to the details I call into question. >If I have offended you, you may exact your revenge upon my poor, defenseless >territory at http://war.darkent.com, you may even use thermo-nuclear >weapons if >you so desire. My territory is #7. You haven't offended me at all. I've run into your type before, especially on the I-Net, and PINE Boards, before there was a www. Backroom engineers, who don a superman costume after work, grab a jar of vaseline, set it near the mouse and boot the computer. >Have fun! > >Belligerent Sam Nowhere near as belligerent as Lee Markland. It's a delight to find someone who will get my juices flowing in a dialogue of marked uncivility. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:01:24 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 (Lasing the night away) >> And hasn't anyone's eyebrows been raised by the video footage of F117 >> attacks on Baghadad. It was a two craft operation, one LASED the target, >> while the other let loose a missle, and in one released footage you can >> hear the conversation between the targeting aircraft and the delivery craft. >> >> But what interests me more than anything, is that the targeting aircraft >> "hoveres" as evidenced by the fact that there was no change in angle, depth >> perception or anything else as the targeting aircraft LASED its target. In >> other words the targeting aircraft is quite obviously in a "hover" mode. > >Now, why in the wide world of sports would you want to come to a >DEAD STOP over the target? Even the Iraqis shoot back, you know. > >Even if you buy into the offboard designator platform theory, and >it's not implausible, it's still hard to see the tactical advantage >of hovering over the target, and even harder to ignore the >significant disadvantages. > >George > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com Now, if you had a dedicated, stealthy lasing platform in the early 1990s, wouldn't the B-2 (and B-1) have been certified to drop LGBs to help push the case for more B-2s to congress? Even is the designating platform was still classified the testing could have been done under the guise of SOF or even UAV support. Nope, doesn't hold water that the US would have such a platform. At a time when almost all levels of the AF were looking for new roles and missions for the former strategic bomber force, the B-2 and B-1 could not drop laser guided bombs since they had no designators. LGB capability would have made their case much, much stronger before congress- even if it meant revealing a "TR-3" or some such program. Instead, a whole new set of GPS/INS guided conventional weapons were developed for the B-2, and the B-1 went through a major modernization program to improve it's conventional weapons capabilities. 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: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:46:29 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: Acquired aircraft Shade wrote: >I don't know about the F-14 but I made a typo I wanted to clear up before everyone notices >and starts thinking me an idiot. I meant Su-27 not 23. (hoping no one even noticed >that)~~~~~ >Shade The Russians had acquired the needed technology for their R-33 (AA-9 Amos) missile from an Iranian AIM-54 Phoenix. Which means they probably got an F-14 with it. It seems to me it would be much harder to obtain an SU-27 than a Mig-29 as not so many countries have those, and those that do, tend to be rather hostile to the west. At one point the South Koreans where talking about buying SU-27s, but I don't think they would have got their hands on one (and soon after the US) unless they had bought them. The other thing is that all these aircraft they have acquired are probably downgraded export versions of the Russian aircraft. And, by the way, I had noticed the 'SU-23', but I thougth I was the idiot for not knowing what a SU-23 was! :-) Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 01:42:25 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #30 At 08:01 PM 04/15/2000 -0700, you wrote: >>A missile? F-117s carried LGBs not AGMs. Conversation huh? Lemme get this >>straight there was a conversation over the target area despite strict >>orders to >>maintain radio silence for the duration of the mission? Use of radio >>communications would have defeated any stealth advantages the F-117 might >>have >>had. > >Yup, watch enough footage of raids on Baghdad and y ou can pick up a lot. >As regards >Radio Communications, I would assume it depends on the frequency used and >the signal strength. >Short range communications, low signal strength, when on the final bombing >run and over target >don't compromise the mission. The bombs and missles have done that. > >I feel inclined to ask my question again. ******************************** Once approaching the Iraqi border all antenna were lowered. They were using standard blade antenna that could be retracted in flight. These included UHF, VHF and IFF. And they maintained this stealthiness or silence while over Iraqi territory. In fact they were anxious to return to the border on the way home so they could raise their IFF antenna (the smallest of the three) as they would have to fly past AWACS and F-15's who were looking for Iraqi fighters. This may have been done sooner then the actual border crossing but certainly long after their bomb runs were complete. And pilots had no reason to communicate with each other. Their flights over Iraq were choreographed in advance and flown independently of each other. The pilot merely "followed the line" on the map using the autopilot for all but the last few minutes of his bomb run. You can confirm this with your local F-117 driver. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 04:23:35 -0500 From: Amy Hebert Subject: Re: White Triangles At 07:55 PM 4/15/00 -0500, Peter wrote: >From: Xelex@aol.com [mailto:Xelex@aol.com] >Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 9:33 PM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: White Triangle > >Today, (14 April 2000) I watched an F-117A make several low passes and a >landing at Palmdale. It appeared to be painted overall gloss white, top and >bottom. > >Peter Merlin Was there cloud cover? According to GOES 8, there was a cloud cover for most of the day over California. Aircraft painted white would be difficult to spot (visually) against a cloudy background - if they needed to fly below the clouds - just as black aircraft are camouflaged against the night sky. Clouds make great camouflage, if you blend in. Maybe even generate your own cloud-cover. Or perhaps his electrochromatic panels shorted out. ;> Amy Hebert ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:23:14 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 In which case according to this guy's biography the YF-113 and YF-117 are fighters. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wei-Jen Su" To: Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 2:51 AM Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Gavin Payne wrote: > Anyone speak Spanish? I am fluent in spanish and others foreign languages... > If so General Ryan has done something with the following > Aviões de Caça (1.798): 135 A-10 Thunderbolt, 96 OA-10, 627 F-15 Eagle, 780 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not spanish... is Portuguese. The translation is "fighter airplanes" May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:25:15 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 I'm not an American citizen, so I'll doubt they'll listen to my request :) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Zinngrabe" To: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 9:39 PM Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 > >Anyone who does a search on www.af.mil for YF-110 will find what you found. > >Does anyone dare email the USAF and ask them what these two aircraft are? > > > > A well put together FOIA request might be a better bet. The more > information you can give them on what you're looking for, the better. > A program description would probably be more than enough to ask for, > and wouldn't cost too much. > > 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 > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:20:25 +0200 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 wayne binkley wrote: > > the following is an "official" USAF biography.the interesting part is at the > bottom ,a listing of acft flown.i****** out the pilots name. > > wayne d.binkley > > JOHN T. M******K > [biography] > > FLIGHT INFORMATION: > Flight hours: More than 3,500 > Aircraft flown: T-38, F-4C/D/E, F-5E, YF-110 and YF-113 > According to "Dark Eagles" (by Curtis Peebles), "YF-110" was assigned to captured/acquired MiG-21s, while "YF-113" was used for MiG-23s. Reading the YF-113G-thread, at least the "YF-113" = MiG-23 identity seems to be "official" (although maybe not true for the "G-model"). Obviously, the YF-110 and YF-113 designators are not _very_ secret ;-), otherwise they wouldn't appear in a published biography. I assume, John T. M. has flown MiG-21s and -23s (which is no surprise, him being CO of the (in-)famous 4477th Test And Evaluation Squadron ;-) ). Andreas ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:29:39 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: White Triangles From: Amy Hebert | Aircraft painted white would be difficult to spot (visually) against a | cloudy background - if they needed to fly below the clouds - just as black | aircraft are camouflaged against the night sky. Clouds make great | camouflage, if you blend in. Maybe even generate your own cloud-cover. Or | perhaps his electrochromatic panels shorted out. ;> You can laugh Amy - but we'll see - or not if the TFTs do their job :) David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:26:45 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 One of the wonderful aspects of the US FOIA is that you don't have to be a US citizen to apply for docs, etc. We've received more than two thousand pages during the course of our on-going research. Generally speaking, the personnel are very efficient and helpful - the more specific and as Dan says, well put together the request, the better the results. David From: Gavin Payne | I'm not an American citizen, so I'll doubt they'll listen to my request :) | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Dan Zinngrabe" | To: | Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 9:39 PM | Subject: Re: YF-110,YF-113 | | | > >Anyone who does a search on www.af.mil for YF-110 will find what you | found. | > >Does anyone dare email the USAF and ask them what these two aircraft are? | > > | > | > A well put together FOIA request might be a better bet. The more | > information you can give them on what you're looking for, the better. | > A program description would probably be more than enough to ask for, | > and wouldn't cost too much. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:03:32 -0400 From: "Paul Heinrich" Subject: Thank you was Re: OT: engineering slang "unobtanium" Hi Guys, Many thanks for all the responses on my off-topic post. Your input has given me several good leads to follow up. thanks again, Paul - -- Paul Heinrich RR1 Box 490 Iron Cave Lane Lewisburg, PA 17837 (570) 524-5820 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:17:39 -0400 From: "Paul Heinrich" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #28 someone wrote: > But what interests me more than anything, is that the targeting >aircraft "hoveres" as evidenced by the fact that there was no >change in angle, depth perception or anything else as the >targeting aircraft LASED its target. In other words the targeting >aircraft is quite obviously in a "hover" mode. Might the difference between F-117 and F-111 video be due to differences in their respective tactics? I believe that the F-117 often orbits it's target at high altitude while the F-111 is often used in a "toss bombing" tactic. That would easily explain the difference in video. Also, the F-117 probably has much newer camera / laser stabilization hardware, while the F-111'd stabilization dates back to the early 1970s or even 1060s. Finally, I didn't think that having two F-117 cooperate in an LGB attack was, at all, unusual. Since the opening of the bomb bay greatly increases the RCS of the aircraft. It makes perfect sense to have one plane go in and lase the target, while the second aircraft makes the bombing run. Since the flight plan for the F-117 is pre-planned and computer controlled to a large extent, would the twp aircraft even need to communicate to do this? ciao, paul - -- Paul Heinrich RR1 Box 490 Iron Cave Lane Lewisburg, PA 17837 (570) 524-5820 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:17:50 -0500 From: Shade Subject: Re: Acquired aircraft
Shade wrote:
>I don't know about the F-14 but I made a typo I wanted to clear up
before everyone notices >and starts thinking me an idiot. I meant Su-27
not 23. (hoping no one even noticed that)~~~~~
>Shade
Timothy wrote:
It seems to me it would be much harder to obtain an SU-27 than a Mig-29
as not so many countries have those, and those that do, tend to be
rather hostile to the west. At one point the South Koreans where talking
about buying SU-27s, but I don't think they would have got their hands
on one (and soon after the US) unless they had bought them.
The other thing is that all these aircraft they have acquired are
probably downgraded export versions of the Russian aircraft.
 
Probably true. I wonder how many US pilots have been to ....
 http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.html  ?  :)  

And, by the way, I had noticed the 'SU-23', but I thougth I was the
idiot for not knowing what a SU-23 was! :-)

Timothy

 Ummm it's one of those new top secret Russian jets stolen from our YF-110 or YF-113 designs, yeah that's the ticket! :)

 
~~~~
Shade
  ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:24:39 -0500 From: Shade Subject: Re: White Triangles  

Amy Hebert wrote:

Was there cloud cover?
According to GOES 8, there was a cloud cover for most of the day over
California.

Aircraft painted white would be difficult to spot (visually) against a
cloudy background - if they needed to fly below the clouds - just as black
aircraft are camouflaged against the night sky.  Clouds make great
camouflage, if you blend in. Maybe even generate your own cloud-cover.  Or
perhaps his electrochromatic panels shorted out. ;>

Amy Hebert

 

Sorry to butt in but where did you get the GEOS 8 info? Is it on the 'net and could you pass a link if it is?
~~~~~
Shade
  ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:24:15 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: (fwd) Area 51: Reveille Peak, new viewpoint for both Groom and Papoose Lake (9-4-99) Mr. Eberle missed my address by leaving out the "1" after "fortean". Since no one commented on this topic it must be a dead issue except for the more extreme wings of the TBs (true believers). I did discuss Area 51 among other topics (such as project name changes, compartmentalization, CIA and military intel reorganization, Project Snowball (alleged former UFO project name)) with a former Army counterintelligence agent. He viewed Area 51 alien and UFO stories as a cover for the stealth and other high tech research, test, and evaluation. Terry - ----- "George R. Kasica" wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:25:22 +0200, "Meinrad Eberle" > wrote: > > ..and it didn't make it on the 12th either! > > Terry, can you try and post the following to Skunkworks Mailing List, > please? Your help is much appreciated. > > Kind regards from the Swiss Alps > > --Meinrad - -- 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: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:21:16 -0500 From: Todd Madson Subject: Black Spot? Fast Mover? Interesting report, Meinrad. Where can the artists depiction and/or wav files of the transmission be found on the net? Or is it under wraps? I've not been able to find the magazine you describe at my local house of periodicals. I envy your sighting. But I have a bit of a strange question regarding this one: isn't it a bit odd to launch what apparently would be a very secret (not to mention expensive) program in broad daylight? Either they got the orders to go no matter what or they had some schedule to adhere to that they couldn't postpone. Or, perhaps the classification "super ultra secret" got changed to just "ultra secret" and they could afford one daylight sighting in order that "Black Spot"/"Fastmover" do whatever craft like that do (probably not aerobatics). The actual announcement of a name over the radio also seems odd. You don't hear a lot of model numbers over the air in civilian air radio traffic. You figure they'd give it an arbitrary flight number or perhaps a non-specific identifier instead of a name like that. I'd bet in the future they'd possibly be more careful. I'd call it tortoise or number 51 or something non-specific. Ominous names tend to attract attention. Or perhaps they could use the call sign of an existing, non classified squadron so it doesn't sound out of the ordinary. Maybe an A-10 Warthog call sign or somesuch. As far as the white F-117 goes. Very interesting indeed. A new coating of some kind? Does white paint appear less visible at altitude than the black? Some one off test? The YF-113G saga is also very interesting. It appears that some of the Mig aircraft may have been used under this name, and some other non-Mig non-Soviet bloc aircraft also may have been under this name. It may be that information slipped out before the consequence of it being revealed was fully considered and was yanked at the last moment. I'd bet that someday we'll get some news about this. - -T ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:00:57 -0400 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: etymology of "unobtainium" The first time I saw a print reference to Unobtainium was in a mid-sixties issue of The Journal of Irreproducible Results, which was jointly published with The Worm-Runners Digest at the University of Michigan. The article dealt, as I recall, with crystalline changes in alloys and purported to demonstrate an alloy which contracted under elongation stress or expanded under compression. The Journal was widely circulated in the auto industry and in academia, and a number of terms which are now part of the English vernacular, such as the famous "Wife of Bath Sign" and "Unobtanium" doubtless originated in the authors' febrile imaginations. In popular usage the term had several different connotations. At times it was used in reference to high-performance parts (eg, titanium connecting rods and exotic valve springs) which were then available only to certain users. Another usage was in reference to components (eg, BMW sheet metal) whose high prices could only be explained by the use of costly special materials. A third usage was extremely disparaging, implying a critical, costly, and/or hard to find component with a short term failure rate approaching 100%. Porsche heater boxes, Lotus door hinges, and Lucas and Marelli electrics are legendary examples. Ron Crawford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 100 23:11:13 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: (fwd) Area 51: Triangular aircraft sighted, radio transmiss I'm not sure exactly how much credibility to give this report or the articles in the magazine. Here's something that really bothers me: >Having decided, much to our regret, to watch the departing craft by >means of binoculars instead of trying to film with the 44-times >digital >zoom videocam or even take photos, we then tracked - for the last few >seconds - the craft's wide backside as it turned [the latter] towards >us. One of the problems with so many reports of seeing or catching fantastic things (and I do believe there are secret a/c flying, just not that many--especially given the Administration's feelings on Defense) is that they always seem to happen when no one thought to bring a camera, or while they were reloading film or changing batteries or the camera just happened to break. In this case, we are told that a team, is out there to catch an incident just like this, is poised and ready and is knowledgeable enough to know what they're looking for when they see it. Here it comes, the vindication of all they've been saying, a major scoop, and the reward for all their admitted effort and hardships in pulling it off. They're in the right place at the right time. There's no one around to stop them. They've got a clear view. They've got cameras and super digital video equipment warmed up and ready, and NO ONE BOTHERS TO USE ANY OF IT????!!!? There's a disconnect here somewhere. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #31 ******************************** 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