From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Sat Mar 25 13:42:46 2006 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:20:54 -0600 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V15 #6 skunk-works-digest Saturday, March 25 2006 Volume 15 : Number 006 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? skunk-works Re: Blackstar Re: skunk-works Re: Blackstar RE: skunk-works Re: Blackstar RE: skunk-works Re: Blackstar Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports skunk-works Spin? Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Re: skunk-works Spin? RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports (no subject) (no subject) ***** SPAM ***** Windows XP Systemworks *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:45:36 -0600 From: Sam W Subject: Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? To say this is an interesting read would be an understatement. This has gotten be excited about high end aviation again. I get the paper copy of Aviation Week and there are more filler articles in there about this. Well worth the trip to the local library if you do not get it. Sam On Mar 6, 2006, at 4:49 PM, George wrote: > Aviation Week & Space Technology > http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/ > 030606p1.xml > > [IMAGE] > > Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? > > By William B. Scott > > 03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM > > [IMAGE] > > [IMAGE] > > SPACEPLANE SHELVED? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:40:30 -0800 (PST) From: ALLEN THOMSON Subject: Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? I've been looking at the story(*), and I'd like to get the opinion of the skunk-works readership about this idea. Namely, looking at the depicted vehicle, its likely performance, the years in which it was developed, the potential missions, then I think the primary mission was likely not to have been orbital launch, but suborbital recon in the "trans-SIOP" time. That is, scouting out "strategic relocatable targets" before and after the balloon went up, doing BDA on other targets to schedule follow-on strikes. SR-71 on steroids, so to speak. Orbiting small sats might have been an option, but I'm not sure it would have all that important. What do y'all think? (*) Boldly assuming that the story isn't complete fantasy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:57:45 -0600 From: "Matt Volk" Subject: Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? Here's an interesting AW&ST article from 1992: *HEADLINE:* Secret Aircraft Encompasses Qualities Of High-Speed Launcher for > Spacecraft > > *BYLINE:* WILLIAM B. SCOTT > > *DATELINE:* LANCASTER, CALIF. > > *BODY:* > Sightings of a large aircraft in Georgia and California during the last > two years have raised new questions about whether the vehicle is a > high-speed replacement for the Lockheed SR-71. > > It is not known if the ''XB-70-like'' aircraft is the vehicle popularly > referred to as ''Aurora'' or the ''pulser'' that leaves ''donuts-on-a-rope'' > contrails. Its size, configuration and features suggest the aircraft may > have multiple missions. > > Observer descriptions, discussions with industry experts, and AVIATION > WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY analyses suggest that the large aircraft could be > the first of a two-stage system designed to launch small payloads into > orbit. Released at Mach 6-8 from a raised section on the aircraft's aft > deck, an unmanned vehicle could accelerate to orbital velocities, then > release a small satellite in space. It also could remain in the atmosphere > or fly a suborbital flight path, carrying its own suite of reconnaissance > sensors. > > This concept, at present, has not been confirmed by any U. S. government > agency or military service. However, aeronautics and space experts agreed > the concept has considerable merit, particularly for orbiting payloads > essential to national security. > > Such a two-stage-to-orbit concept is hardly a new one, having surfaced as > a candidate U. S. launch system in the 1950s. It also is the basis for > Germany's Saenger design. Advancements in strong, lightweight and > heat-tolerant materials -- as well as breakthroughs in hybrid propulsion > systems -- may have made the two-stage concept attractive for > limited-weight, critical payloads. > > According to William R. Laidlaw, a former vice president of advanced > systems for North American Rockwell and current founder/CEO of Aerotest, > early studies defined the characteristics of such an aircraft. He said a > high-speed, air-breathing launch vehicle would tend to be long, with a high > fineness ratio; have a broad, delta planform; probably have wingtip-mounted > vertical fins; use a multi-cycle propulsion system capable of reaching the > Mach 6-8 regime, and be large enough to carry adequate hydrogen, methane or > other advanced, high-energy, cryogenic fuel. > > EARLY STUDIES CONSISTENT > > Aviation Week analyses are supported by possibly related events and > deductions, such as: > > -- A long, slender aerodynamic shape with rounded chines was loaded into > an Air Force C-5 transport at Lockheed's Burbank, Calif., ''Skunk Works'' > facility on the night of Jan. 6. Estimated to be 65-75 ft. long and 10 ft. > high, it was light-colored and had a distinctive, blended-shape aft cross > section. The C-5 departed Burbank at 11:15 p. m. PST and was cleared to > Boeing Field near Seattle, Wash. > > -- A quick-reaction project to develop a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle would > have been highly attractive to the Defense Dept. after the shuttle > Challenger accident and a subsequent series of expendable launch vehicle > failures in the mid-to-late 1980s. A concerned Defense Dept. may have > embraced a means of assuring access to space, especially if it were an > on-demand, flexible launch system. > > -- Air Force officials who canceled the SR-71 program said ''satellites > can do the job'' of strategic reconnaissance. That position appeared to > ignore the predictable and inflexible nature of satellites' fixed orbits. A > high-speed aircraft/spacecraft system that could orbit a small satellite > carrying a suite of reconnaissance sensors and communication equipment would > overcome that detraction, however. If the second-stage vehicle were fairly > ''stealthy,'' the satellite could be launched covertly into any orbit at the > most desirable time. This approach also would preclude risks associated with > in-atmosphere aircraft overflying hostile areas. > > -- Several spacecraft manufacturers have developed small satellites -- or > ''small-sats'' -- that would be compatible with a two-stage launch system. > Until recently, none would acknowledge they had built any, though (AW&ST > June 15, p. 94). TRW, Ball Aerospace and others may have developed a stable > of covert, flexible spacecraft that can be configured with a variety of > sensors, then launched into orbit on short notice. > > -- Senior National Aero-Space Plane program engineers have admitted > privately that their studies indicate a two-stage-to-orbit system is > technically feasible and would be more economical than a single-stage > system. ''Given what we know now, we'd prefer to go with a high-speed > aircraft and launch something from it to get into orbit,'' one engineer > said. This concept would save about one-third the fuel weight required of a > single-stage NASP system, he said. > > -- Several years ago, the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory's ''Beta'' > program was based on a two-stage-to-orbit system that used a > ''Concorde-like'' vehicle to launch a ''miniature delta-shaped'' craft into > space, an engineer familiar with the effort said. For reasons still unclear, > the aircraft was not built, he said. > > HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS > > A high-speed, two-stage launch concept is a logical descendant of the > M-12/D-21A system Lockheed's Skunk Works developed under the > A-12/YF-12/SR-71 ''Blackbird'' programs. A version of the Central > Intelligence Agency's A-12 reconnaissance aircraft, the M-12 was designed to > carry and launch a single 12,000-lb. D-21A ramjet drone at 80,000 ft. and > Mach 3. Two of the M-12 ''motherships'' were built. > > The A-12 -- originally designated the A-11 by Lockheed -- was a > single-seat predecessor of the two-man SR-71. It first flew in April, 1962. > The YF-12A, designed as a Mach-3 interceptor armed with air-to-air missiles, > provided valuable flight test data for the follow-on SR-71 aircraft. All > three Blackbird models had similar external planforms. > > Although one aircraft was lost during a test, several D-21A drones were > launched from the M-12 at speeds over Mach 3, proving that high-speed > separation is feasible. Another experiment demonstrated that the D-21A drone > could operate its engines while still attached to the carrier aircraft, > augmenting M-12 thrust during acceleration to high launch speeds. The drone > engine was fueled from the M-12's tanks during this phase. > > Financial analysts recently concluded that ''Aurora'' and other classified > programs at Lockheed grew from $ 65 million in 1987 to $ 400 million last > year, and could reach $ 475 million by 1993, according to Lawrence M. > Harris, a Kemper Securities analyst. > > Harris estimated that ''Aurora'' could be operational in 1995, and may > have made its first flight in 1989. > > Employment at Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. has fluctuated somewhat > in recent years, but, now at 4,600 employees, has remained higher than can > be explained by residual TR-1, F-117A and F-22 work. > On 3/7/06, ALLEN THOMSON wrote: > > I've been looking at the story(*), and I'd like to get the opinion of the > skunk-works readership about this idea. > > Namely, looking at the depicted vehicle, its likely performance, the > years in which it was developed, the potential missions, then I think the > primary mission was likely not to have been orbital launch, but suborbital > recon in the "trans-SIOP" time. That is, scouting out "strategic > relocatable targets" before and after the balloon went up, doing BDA on > other targets to schedule follow-on strikes. SR-71 on steroids, so to speak. > > Orbiting small sats might have been an option, but I'm not sure it would > have all that important. > > What do y'all think? > > (*) Boldly assuming that the story isn't complete fantasy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 22:25:07 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: skunk-works Re: Blackstar I had some questions and comments about the Blackstar story: 1. Is this a joke? 2. No, really. Is this a joke? 3. Why aren't there more verifiable facts in this story? 4. In the opening paragraph it says there is "considerable evidence" to support the existence of this air/space craft. Why wasn't this evidence included in the article? 5. Could "spaceplane landings" at Hurlburt, Kadena, and Holloman really be kept secret? 6. How many sightings of an XB-70 type aircraft have been documented on film/video? 7. If "top military space planners apparently have never been 'briefed-in'," then what good is it? 8. The "tons of material" for a third XB-70 were scrapped. 9. If any C-5 aircraft were modified with "chipmunk cheeks" why haven't any plane spotters photographed them? 10. The same question goes for a C-5 with a red "CL" tail code. Also, why would the CIA call attention to there plane by marking it in this fashion? 11. NASA doesn't have any C-5 aircraft in its inventory, and they couldn't hide it if they did. 12. The so-called "NASA source" gave the tail numbers for these aircraft as 00503 and 00504, but the actual USAF C-5C (Space Cargo Modified) aircraft are 80213 and 80216. 13. All C-5 airframes are easily accounted for. No new airframes have been built. 14. Is AW&ST turning into Popular Mechanics? Sorry, but I was disappointed with the lack of substance in this article. It seems like a rehash of every neo-Aurora rumor of the past decade. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 03:24:25 -0500 (EST) From: Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: skunk-works Re: Blackstar I complete agree with Peter -- when I first read this article, I immediately checked my calendar to see if it was already April 1st. :-) >12. The so-called "NASA source" gave the tail numbers for these aircraft >as 00503 and 00504, but the actual USAF C-5C (Space Cargo Modified) >aircraft are 80213 and 80216. Just one addition: 12a. There are no (and never were) any C-5s with a "tail number" of either "00503" or "00504". Those "tail numbers" imply FY-Serial numbers of either 70-0503/4, 80-0503/4 or possibly 90-0503/4. But those serials belong to the following aircraft: * 70-0503/4 ==> MDD F-4E Phantom II (cancelled) * 80-0503/4 ==> GD F-16A Block 10C Fighting Falcon (c/n 61-224/5) * 90-0503/4 ==> MDD AH-64A Apache (c/n PV830/PV831) for Egypt In fact, there never were any C-5s with serials/tail numbers ending in either "503" or "504". If they can't get such simple facts right, how much credence can you give to the rest of the story? And inventing fake designations like "SR-3" and "XOV-1" makes the story even less believable. In fact, the "XOV-n" designation reminded me of the (also) fictitious "X-RV" -- eXperimental Rescue Vehicle (numbered "031") -- from the 1969 movie "Marooned". :-) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@CharterMI.net 415 Gute Street or: Andreas@DDPSoftware.com Owosso, MI 48867-4410 or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Tel: (989) 723-9927 Web Site: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:50:12 -0800 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works Re: Blackstar Hello guys, Agree the verifiable facts are off. But I think the piece says it is basically cleaning out the file and puting these old mysteries to bed. Of coarse, as time goes by we get even more able to build more "Aurora"s, and in fact there already have been Aurora-like vehicles built and flown, the X-43A, HyShot and the Russian efforts on the tips of SAMs. Hopefully there will be many more, and soon, so that the dream of the ultimate airplane actually goes somewhere. Larry - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:24 AM To: Skunk Works List Subject: Re: skunk-works Re: Blackstar I complete agree with Peter -- when I first read this article, I immediately checked my calendar to see if it was already April 1st. :-) >12. The so-called "NASA source" gave the tail numbers for these aircraft >as 00503 and 00504, but the actual USAF C-5C (Space Cargo Modified) >aircraft are 80213 and 80216. Just one addition: 12a. There are no (and never were) any C-5s with a "tail number" of either "00503" or "00504". Those "tail numbers" imply FY-Serial numbers of either 70-0503/4, 80-0503/4 or possibly 90-0503/4. But those serials belong to the following aircraft: * 70-0503/4 ==> MDD F-4E Phantom II (cancelled) * 80-0503/4 ==> GD F-16A Block 10C Fighting Falcon (c/n 61-224/5) * 90-0503/4 ==> MDD AH-64A Apache (c/n PV830/PV831) for Egypt In fact, there never were any C-5s with serials/tail numbers ending in either "503" or "504". If they can't get such simple facts right, how much credence can you give to the rest of the story? And inventing fake designations like "SR-3" and "XOV-1" makes the story even less believable. In fact, the "XOV-n" designation reminded me of the (also) fictitious "X-RV" -- eXperimental Rescue Vehicle (numbered "031") - -- from the 1969 movie "Marooned". :-) - -- Andreas - --- - --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@CharterMI.net 415 Gute Street or: Andreas@DDPSoftware.com Owosso, MI 48867-4410 or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Tel: (989) 723-9927 Web Site: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- - --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:33:10 -0800 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works Re: Blackstar Hi again, I want to make another observation. I've been thinking aout this some more. >14. Is AW&ST turning into Popular Mechanics? >inventing fake designations like "SR-3" and "XOV-1" makes the story >even less believable. Again, agreed on getting the verifiable evidence straight. I agree with you guys. But, does it really matter? Is that the goal of the piece? These guys aren't really historians or archeologists, even thought they put together and sell historical intrest aerospace media from time to time. And given the technology level of much of what they write about, and the fact that they aren't techical experts on many of the stories they write about too - and that isn't necessary either. They must report on what's going on in the current aerospace world, from their contacts. These same contacts give them these strange reports from time to time. And some of these contacts are very credible professional aerospace people. The piece indicates one. If you still dream about Aerospace, don't you want to hear these stories? I do ! They also show this evidence to aerospace experts to get feedback. Maybe they ought to have a "Strange File" feature where they publish some of the more interesting things of this kind from time to time, just as they are. The Aerospace world is a very interesting place !!!! Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:09:47 EST From: MiGEater1@aol.com Subject: Re: skunk-works Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? This sure sounds like an early visual sighting of the then secret Boeing Bird of Prey. John, Seattle In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:58:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, mattazuma@gmail.com writes: > -- A long, slender aerodynamic shape with rounded chines was loaded into > an Air Force C-5 transport at Lockheed's Burbank, Calif., ''Skunk Works'' > facility on the night of Jan. 6. Estimated to be 65-75 ft. long and 10 ft. > high, it was light-colored and had a distinctive, blended-shape aft cross > section. The C-5 departed Burbank at 11:15 p. m. PST and was cleared to > Boeing Field near Seattle, Wash. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:03 -0800 (PST) From: ALLEN THOMSON Subject: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports There's a pretty scathing review of the AvWeek Blackstar articles at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1 , and I have a question. As the article states, AWST named two people who saw what may have Blackstar, James Petty near Salt Lake City on 4 October 1998 and Nancy Weitzman of Doylestown, PA sometime in 1993. Have either of those sightings been reported before? Googling about, I can't find any mention of them prior to the AvWeek article. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:55:40 -0600 From: Jay Miller Subject: Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Allen, Thanks for sending this. It's the most rational condemnation of the AW&ST article to date. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:21:17 -0800 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports I skimmed it, but found a good number of things I disagree with him already on. I enjoy this where are the witnesses, but of coarse he doesn't like the witnesses offered, so he just sweeps them aside as though they don't exist. I shall read it and list what I like and don't like as a useful excersize and to also blow off some steam. I also read his short bio. at the end. From that it apears he is a "historian" and not a guy that would ever write anything that didn't have umpteen levels of proof associated with it. Such a thing is fine, but not exactly black aircraft rumors. The two genre are very different! I like aircraft history but also like reading rumors, and thinking where black technology could be today, given that they flew a Mach 3+ totally autonomous drone at 90,000 ft back in the mid 60's. Agree on the need for healthy skepticism. And as I recall, one of the TAGBOARD test launches was in daylight and in full view of the Los Angekes area. Again, Mr. Day would be off on that point if my memory serves me correctly. Also, if we really checked, there may have been SENIOR BOWL aircraft hung from certain B-52G's that were flown in daylight over populated areas. After all the Hound Dog missile was the "plausible deniability" vehicle for SENIOR BOWL. So guys who write pieces on aircraft rumors have to deal with "plausible deniability". Historians don't. It's black and white ! Regards, Larry - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Jay Miller Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:56 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Allen, Thanks for sending this. It's the most rational condemnation of the AW&ST article to date. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:24:33 -0800 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports So what are you saying here? AW&ST would not share them with any other media, and AW&ST wouldn't report other media's work. So it would be left up to the source to take it somewhere else. Regards, Larry - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of ALLEN THOMSON Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:34 AM To: Skunk Works Subject: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports There's a pretty scathing review of the AvWeek Blackstar articles at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1 , and I have a question. As the article states, AWST named two people who saw what may have Blackstar, James Petty near Salt Lake City on 4 October 1998 and Nancy Weitzman of Doylestown, PA sometime in 1993. Have either of those sightings been reported before? Googling about, I can't find any mention of them prior to the AvWeek article. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:47:26 -0600 From: Jay Miller Subject: Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports I'm not going to say a lot here, because it's unnecessary - and I think most of you who follow black world subjects know I'm not a b.s. artist. I'm going to tell you without equivocation that the AW&ST Scott story is riddled with major - probably unintentional - misrepresentations of fact. There is little, if any, accuracy in the article. Also, for what it's worth - and in reference to the comments concerning the D-21 and launches from the B-52H - all D-21 test flights, without exception, are noted in the appendix to my Skunk Works history. All, (excepting the operational missions), took place over the Pacific Missile Test Range (or what is now the PMTR). None were launched over land and none were visible from the shores of California. Additionally, due to the secrecy of the program, not a soul outside of those who had been briefed on the D-21 or those who were intimate with its manufacture and design could possibly have known what they were looking at even if they had been privileged to see it launched. Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:20:05 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: skunk-works Spin? Greeting from the UK. A Dwayne a Day says: << "But it turns out that the atomic-powered bomber never existed... " >> That's really weird - Because a Discovery Wings documentary I recently watched featured a Russian 'Nuclear*-Powered aircraft', the Tupolev (Tu-119) 'Bear'... (*That's "Nucular" - for George Dubbya & Co.!) Google Earth now enables us to look down on (ED?) F-16's and 'Janet' B.737s on the Dreamland ramps... But until we can enjoy a 'Groom Lake AFB Open House & Airshow', we may never know much of what's tucked away in their hangars and shelters... If journalists feed us snippets of information, even with a little 'spin' attached - let's enjoy the fun while it lasts. Soon, the only planes we see will be UAVs!!! - ------------------ Cheers! Bill Turner. =================== Trust No-One! =================== _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/black-triangle_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/black-triangle) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:28:18 -0700 From: "Matthew Loufek" Subject: Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports Jay - Yeah. But it was sure fun to read. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:31:22 -0500 From: Phil Moyer Subject: Re: skunk-works Spin? SecretJet@aol.com wrote: > Greeting from the UK. > > A Dwayne a Day says: > > << "But it turns out that the atomic-powered bomber never existed... " >> > > That's really weird - Because a Discovery Wings documentary > I recently watched featured a Russian 'Nuclear*-Powered aircraft', > the Tupolev (Tu-119) 'Bear'... > And, of course, the US had plans for their own nuclear-powered UAV bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:57:24 -0800 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports This is one of the reasons I lost interest in black aircraft and stopped buying books on them. Quite frankly, I could care less what you think you know ! It does me no good if I can't know it too. I have also been a friend of Bill Scott's for many years, and what you say sounds more like a heaping pile of B.S. than the man I know. So continue this line without me. Larry - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Jay Miller Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:47 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: skunk-works Blackstar article, sighting reports I'm not going to say a lot here, because it's unnecessary - and I think most of you who follow black world subjects know I'm not a b.s. artist. I'm going to tell you without equivocation that the AW&ST Scott story is riddled with major - probably unintentional - misrepresentations of fact. There is little, if any, accuracy in the article. Also, for what it's worth - and in reference to the comments concerning the D-21 and launches from the B-52H - all D-21 test flights, without exception, are noted in the appendix to my Skunk Works history. All, (excepting the operational missions), took place over the Pacific Missile Test Range (or what is now the PMTR). None were launched over land and none were visible from the shores of California. Additionally, due to the secrecy of the program, not a soul outside of those who had been briefed on the D-21 or those who were intimate with its manufacture and design could possibly have known what they were looking at even if they had been privileged to see it launched. Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:46:13 -0500 From: livecamaccess 42@gmail.com Subject: (no subject) Hello , Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellysmith4286/cam.html - ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "RCTTown Download Files" file database. The webmasters of the "RCTTown Download Files" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 2006 08:40:02 +0700 From: livecamaccess@nerv.forstudent.com, 54@gmail.com Subject: (no subject) Hello , Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellyluvsuhs/cam.html - ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "Cm-FmThai Download Center " file database. The webmasters of the "Cm-FmThai Download Center " file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:19:25 -0900 From: "Sarah Mckenzie" Subject: ***** SPAM ***** Windows XP Systemworks vxtuejyggnvdrhlshxpaujbat

(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is located at the end of this message.)

Dear members and friends of DLsoft Team,

* Our products' list has been recently updated. More products for Mac were added ..
Are you interested ? Then click on More details link.

Click here for more specials ...
Your cooperation will be met with a great gratitude and appreciation, and we'll be glad to create more special offers for you in the future.

Sincerely yours, DLsoft Team.  

(C) 2006, DLsoft PTE. All rights reserved. All logos, trademarks, etc. are property of their respectful owners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following information is a reminder of your current mailing list subscription:

You are subscribed to the following list:

DLsoft customers Weekly specials

using the following email:

support @ softbydl com

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL:

http://onlytopoemsoft.com/cgi-bin/members/unsubscri be.cgi/?yaghnpmafqdbunrhbotmjsidxb

If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the entire address.
Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break this automatic unsubscribe mechanism.

You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen:

http://onlytopoemsoft.com/cgi-bin/members/change.cgi/?wsyle akjppf

If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at:

support @ softbydl . com

The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:

DLsoft, P.O. Box 5009 Pirae
Tahiti FP

------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V15 #6 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest 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