From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Thu Aug 3 12:52:10 2006 Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:35 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V15 #11 skunk-works-digest Thursday, August 3 2006 Volume 15 : Number 011 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works "Report fuels spy plane theories" Re: skunk-works-digest V15 #10 skunk-works FWD (forteana) Artist's impression of Aurora spy plane - does it exist? skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane RE: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane RE: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane skunk-works hello and data request Re: skunk-works hello and data request skunk-works Lockheed reveals 3rd generation Tier 3-based UAV skunk-works strange 747-type aircraft at Heathrow RE: skunk-works strange 747-type aircraft at Heathrow *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:33:23 -0700 From: Patrick Subject: Re: skunk-works "Report fuels spy plane theories" At 04:39 AM 6/15/2006, you wrote: >The Aurora has 100,000 web pages devoted to it - a lot for an >aircraft which may not exist. Incorrect. The number is 100,001. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:00:11 -0500 From: crash Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V15 #10 Patrick: point ceded. Actually since all we have are quotes from an allegedly intercepted transmission, we really have no data points - just hearsay. Until I hear an actual audio file of a radio transmission or photo of a visual sighting we don't have much re: gaspipe. Although that BBC report indicates they know about some things we're flying around now and are probably operational. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:58:52 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: skunk-works FWD (forteana) Artist's impression of Aurora spy plane - does it exist? This is the first time I've seen "Aurora" mentioned for a while: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5079044.stm By Meirion Jones BBC Newsnight Artist's impression of Aurora spy plane - does it exist? Newsnight report The UK knows more than it is saying about top secret American aircraft projects, recently declassified documents reveal. Deep inside a previously secret Ministry of Defence report are a few pages which will reignite one of the biggest internet conspiracy questions - Is the US Air Force building secret spy planes which can cross the sky at 3,000mph? The plane, which is often referred to as Aurora, is supposed to be a follow on from the U2 spy plane and the 2,000mph SR71 Blackbird, both of which were first developed and flown in secrecy as 'Black' projects. The MoD report from 2000 says the USAF plans to produce "highly supersonic vehicles at Mach 4 to 6" and hypersonic unmanned craft which will fly in the upper atmosphere and in space. In 2003, the USAF revealed it had been working on a hypersonic unmanned craft - the Falcon - - but denied building an Aurora-like Mach 4 to 6 aircraft. The Aurora has 100,000 web pages devoted to it - a lot for an aircraft which may not exist. According to Jane's Defence Review a third of USAF spending on research and development and procurement goes on classified projects. Some of that helps pay for the development of spy satellites and intelligence activities. But a sizable proportion goes on the development of secret manned and unmanned aircraft. Area 51 See the key pages of the report More details For more than 50 years some of the world's most exotic aircraft have been developed at Groom Lake in Nevada - otherwise knows as Area 51 - where the appearance of strange shapes in the sky - planes which officially did not exist - led to rumours that captured UFOs were being flown out of there by the US military. The U2 first took to the sky at Groom Lake in 1955 and stayed secret for five years till the Russians shot one down over Svedlovsk and captured the pilot Gary Powers. The Blackbird SR71 spy plane also secretly flew from Groom Lake in the early 1960s and the F117 Stealth Fighter and its prototypes flew from there for ten years before they were publicly revealed. Huge projects have been hidden from public gaze. The USAF spent $20 billion in developing the B2 stealth bomber before revealing it. Millions were spent upgrading Groom Lake ten years ago and all the surrounding high ground which overlooks the base has been fenced off to keep out curious onlookers but apart from a couple of stealth prototypes there is no sign of what the USAF has been working on there since. 'Black' projects Gary Powers was shot down in a U2 over Soviet airspace in 1960 The MoD report which was produced in 2000 and originally classified "Secret - UK eyes only" deals with UFOs - or UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) in MoD jargon - and concludes that there is no evidence for the existence of alien visitors. But it includes a working paper on 'Black' projects which says "it is acknowledged that some UAP sightings can be attributed to covert aircraft programmes". The report lists three Western programmes. The first is the SR71 Blackbird which it refers to by its little-used code name 'Senior Crown'. A 14-line description of Programme 2 and a ten-line description of Programme 3 are both withheld. Even the names of the programmes have been redacted on the grounds of 'international relations'. There are pictures of stealth fighters and bombers, the Blackbird and the new American F22 fighter but two photographs have been withheld. Could one of these be a picture of Aurora? [It] could be speculation but then why would they [the MoD] need to withhold it? Bill Sweetman, Jane's Defence Review Full report on MoD website Bill Sweetman of Jane's Defence Review has been analysing America's undercover defence projects for fifteen years. We showed him the report and he concludes the MoD "identified two separate US 'Black' programmes that might have operated from the UK. It could be something they have reason to know about". Imagination The blanked out sections might well contain a reference to Aurora but that does not mean the plane definitely exists. Sweetman says the blanked out sections "could be speculation but then why would they need to withhold it?" Elsewhere in the document in a section on exotic technologies is another intriguing line. The DIS say "The projected (USAF) priority plan is to produce unpiloted air-breathing aircraft with a Mach 8-12 capability and transatmospheric vehicles." but it then continues "as well as highly supersonic vehicles at Mach 4 to 6". The MoD report will be seen by Aurora chasers as another clue to put with unexplained sightings and mystery sonic booms but the Pentagon still insists that Aurora is a figment of their imaginations. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm - -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * 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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:48:14 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane On 24 Jun 2006, at 16:22, <> wrote: > It's seems U2's were (or are) being flown out of Fairford, if > Aurora exists why are they still flying recon in U2's? Having the SR-71 didn't stop them flying the U-2. Different platforms with different capabilities for different kinds of mission. > With the advances in satellite and drone technology, is there > really any > need for a super high speed/altitude recon aircraft? When the SR-71 was withdrawn from service, the official line was that it was no longer needed due to advances in satellite technology. I don't know anyone who believed this. Although the resolution of spy sats is top secret (but probably constantly over-estimated by conspiracy theorists & general paranoids), sats don't give anything like the flexibility of an aircraft. Though sats can be repositioned, the degree to which you can do this, and the number of times you can do it, is very limited. Aircraft can be on the spot within hours. Drones are effective in tactical situations - they are used generally for battlespace intelligence, often tied in with ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Recon) systems. But UAVs have limited ranges, and are generally slow compared to an SR-71 (they are getting better, though), so are not as good for the strategic role. - -- Steve Mansfield-Devine - -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * 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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:01:26 -0600 From: "Robert Gates" Subject: RE: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane True enough about the U2...different platforms and different capabilities, for different missions. The current crop of Sats are alleged to have a resolution of around 6 inch...especially true with the newer generations. That being said, as aluded to down below, it is a pain to move Sats, i.e. retask them, and thats not generally dones unless you have some burning (pardon the use of the word) crises, such as North Korea, or Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc etc etc. Now as everybody knows Sats are very predictable, so, just like on some of our bases, a notification goes off before a Sat rises on the horizon so that various things can be put under cover, then when the Sat goes down, you can uncover or bring out equipment or whatever. There have been rumors of so called Dark Sats, masqurading as space junk or in a higher orbit then what you would expect out of a recon sat, hence people don't put stuff under cover. But who knows about that...just rumors. Now Drones are good and useful at the local level, especially when you can fly in the Drones, and the crews that Launch them. I am aware that you can control the drones...say in Iraq from America, but you still have to get the crews and the Drones to the Iraq theatre. Bottom line is Drones are cute, and provide a nice local coverage. Now say you have a hot spot break out in the South Atlantic, or where ever and you don't have time to get the assets in place but you absolutly need to have a recon mission. Drones won't make it, and Sats may need a day or two or three to get into position. However if you have a fast, manned aircraft, such as the SR or a possible sucessor that can go down on a moments notice, grab the pics, uplink them to a Sat while they are crusing home. Now if it is true that the SRs aren't flying anymore and there is no follow on, and everybody is worshiping at the feet of Drones and Recon Sats, I would have to conclude that we have some real, less knowledgeable fools pulling the levers of power, however it shouldn't surprise me, in light of what I heard next. One individual telss me about active Duty AF individual, high up in the communications chain of things. Apparently the AF pwerson was asked about hardening of the electronics, etc etc. The person responded and said that was all obsolete with the end of the cold war in 1992. Apparently if they do have an EMP, the procedure is to replace the burned out equipment with the two spares they keep in a special cabinet. But the person pointed out that alot of the electronics have been upgraded, but nobody bothered to upgrade the spares in the cabinet because they could save money. Needless to say with the upgrades he said the "old" spares would not function with the current systems etc etc. On paper, they can say that they are covered for redundant capability, but in reality and actual work practice, they would be down for the count. But in their mind, that would never every happen, because nobody is stupid enough to launch nukes...blah blah. Yeah Right! I found this story pretty incredible and talked to a high ranking person who said it was very deplorable, but VERY true. He said if we ever had a EMP event, or a all out nuclear war, people would be very surprised and very shocked about what exactly works, and what doesn't. This individual reminded me how after 911, many corporations went bananas about moving data centers out of the big cities and into small town America because those towns would be safe etc etc. Starting in 2004 alot of the corporate data centers were being closed...because of the rational about how there has never been a terrorist attack since 911, and these data centers are costing us money that could be used more/better elsewhere etc etc. So I could easily speculate that we have no succssor to the SR, and we are worshiping at the feet of Sats and drones Cheers, Robert - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:48 PM To: Electronic Warfare; Skunk-Works Subject: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane On 24 Jun 2006, at 16:22, <> wrote: > It's seems U2's were (or are) being flown out of Fairford, if > Aurora exists why are they still flying recon in U2's? Having the SR-71 didn't stop them flying the U-2. Different platforms with different capabilities for different kinds of mission. > With the advances in satellite and drone technology, is there > really any > need for a super high speed/altitude recon aircraft? When the SR-71 was withdrawn from service, the official line was that it was no longer needed due to advances in satellite technology. I don't know anyone who believed this. Although the resolution of spy sats is top secret (but probably constantly over-estimated by conspiracy theorists & general paranoids), sats don't give anything like the flexibility of an aircraft. Though sats can be repositioned, the degree to which you can do this, and the number of times you can do it, is very limited. Aircraft can be on the spot within hours. Drones are effective in tactical situations - they are used generally for battlespace intelligence, often tied in with ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Recon) systems. But UAVs have limited ranges, and are generally slow compared to an SR-71 (they are getting better, though), so are not as good for the strategic role. - -- Steve Mansfield-Devine - -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * 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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:52:34 -0700 From: "Smith, Larry O" Subject: RE: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane You're touching some scary scenarios here Robert ! On the matter at the end of your post. >So I could easily speculate that we have no succssor to the SR, and we are >worshiping at the feet of Sats and drones This reminds me of a time I was invited to show my formerly classified D-21 videos (gotten as a thank you for helping restore the D-21 at SMOF) to a retired government official and a famous aviation author. At the end of the showing, I had to leave, so the retired government official walked me out to my transportation and thanked me and then took me aside and said, basically, there is no airbreathing successor (to the M3 blackbirds). So maybe you're right ! This doesn't explain some of the sightings, but we don't really understand how weird the world is either. Larry - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Robert Gates Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane True enough about the U2...different platforms and different capabilities, for different missions. The current crop of Sats are alleged to have a resolution of around 6 inch...especially true with the newer generations. That being said, as aluded to down below, it is a pain to move Sats, i.e. retask them, and thats not generally dones unless you have some burning (pardon the use of the word) crises, such as North Korea, or Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc etc etc. Now as everybody knows Sats are very predictable, so, just like on some of our bases, a notification goes off before a Sat rises on the horizon so that various things can be put under cover, then when the Sat goes down, you can uncover or bring out equipment or whatever. There have been rumors of so called Dark Sats, masqurading as space junk or in a higher orbit then what you would expect out of a recon sat, hence people don't put stuff under cover. But who knows about that...just rumors. Now Drones are good and useful at the local level, especially when you can fly in the Drones, and the crews that Launch them. I am aware that you can control the drones...say in Iraq from America, but you still have to get the crews and the Drones to the Iraq theatre. Bottom line is Drones are cute, and provide a nice local coverage. Now say you have a hot spot break out in the South Atlantic, or where ever and you don't have time to get the assets in place but you absolutly need to have a recon mission. Drones won't make it, and Sats may need a day or two or three to get into position. However if you have a fast, manned aircraft, such as the SR or a possible sucessor that can go down on a moments notice, grab the pics, uplink them to a Sat while they are crusing home. Now if it is true that the SRs aren't flying anymore and there is no follow on, and everybody is worshiping at the feet of Drones and Recon Sats, I would have to conclude that we have some real, less knowledgeable fools pulling the levers of power, however it shouldn't surprise me, in light of what I heard next. One individual telss me about active Duty AF individual, high up in the communications chain of things. Apparently the AF pwerson was asked about hardening of the electronics, etc etc. The person responded and said that was all obsolete with the end of the cold war in 1992. Apparently if they do have an EMP, the procedure is to replace the burned out equipment with the two spares they keep in a special cabinet. But the person pointed out that alot of the electronics have been upgraded, but nobody bothered to upgrade the spares in the cabinet because they could save money. Needless to say with the upgrades he said the "old" spares would not function with the current systems etc etc. On paper, they can say that they are covered for redundant capability, but in reality and actual work practice, they would be down for the count. But in their mind, that would never every happen, because nobody is stupid enough to launch nukes...blah blah. Yeah Right! I found this story pretty incredible and talked to a high ranking person who said it was very deplorable, but VERY true. He said if we ever had a EMP event, or a all out nuclear war, people would be very surprised and very shocked about what exactly works, and what doesn't. This individual reminded me how after 911, many corporations went bananas about moving data centers out of the big cities and into small town America because those towns would be safe etc etc. Starting in 2004 alot of the corporate data centers were being closed...because of the rational about how there has never been a terrorist attack since 911, and these data centers are costing us money that could be used more/better elsewhere etc etc. So I could easily speculate that we have no succssor to the SR, and we are worshiping at the feet of Sats and drones Cheers, Robert - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:48 PM To: Electronic Warfare; Skunk-Works Subject: skunk-works FWD [forteana] Re: Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane On 24 Jun 2006, at 16:22, <> wrote: > It's seems U2's were (or are) being flown out of Fairford, if > Aurora exists why are they still flying recon in U2's? Having the SR-71 didn't stop them flying the U-2. Different platforms with different capabilities for different kinds of mission. > With the advances in satellite and drone technology, is there > really any > need for a super high speed/altitude recon aircraft? When the SR-71 was withdrawn from service, the official line was that it was no longer needed due to advances in satellite technology. I don't know anyone who believed this. Although the resolution of spy sats is top secret (but probably constantly over-estimated by conspiracy theorists & general paranoids), sats don't give anything like the flexibility of an aircraft. Though sats can be repositioned, the degree to which you can do this, and the number of times you can do it, is very limited. Aircraft can be on the spot within hours. Drones are effective in tactical situations - they are used generally for battlespace intelligence, often tied in with ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Recon) systems. But UAVs have limited ranges, and are generally slow compared to an SR-71 (they are getting better, though), so are not as good for the strategic role. - -- Steve Mansfield-Devine - -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * 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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:43:06 -0500 From: "Karen Mass" Subject: skunk-works hello and data request hi all. by way of introduction, i'm karen. i've been a systems engineer for the last 30 years, working primarily on display systems for military and commercial aircraft. i've even worked on the original displays used in the f-117 (we called it LT for logistics trainer). when i first started working on the LT program i was curious because i couldn't feature what a logistics trainer might be, or why it would need esentially the same displays used on the f-18. i asked around a bit and was politely told that if i liked working at this company i would shut the F**K up about LT. a few years later (after the f-117 was announced) i was told what it was. anyhow, i found this list while searching for some information on the web and thought it would be fun to join. ya'll seem to be really current on stuff! speaking of stuff, what i was originally looking for is detailed structural data on the u-2c. even info on the alpha or bravo models would work. a station diagram or airframe maintenance manual would probably do everything i need. if anyone has any leads for this, please email me! its nice to join ya and thanks in advance! karen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:32:01 -0500 From: Jay Miller Subject: Re: skunk-works hello and data request Karen, If you haven't done so already, contact Chris Pocock for the information you're seeking. His e-mail address is: ukdragon@aol.com Good luck. Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:25:11 -0700 From: "dan z" Subject: skunk-works Lockheed reveals 3rd generation Tier 3-based UAV Many people will find this A/C to be very familiar: Apparently it's flown only twice so far "at the Nellis Range" due to weather. What's interesting is that the new construction techniques used on this AC make it a giant model airplane! Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:37:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: skunk-works strange 747-type aircraft at Heathrow Hello, This isn't exactly "skunkworks" related, but this has to be the best group to ask. I recently flew thru London's Heathrow airport, and taxied past the one of the strangest aircraft I've ever seen. Google Maps has a very good overhead view here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=heathrow+airport&ie=UTF8&ll=51.472235,-0.432957&spn=0.001059,0.001805&t=h&om=1 (if that wraps too much, try this: http://tinyurl.com/h6ht8 ) It's sitting in plain view, right next to the Concorde on static display (which isn't in the sat photo above). Talk about bizarre, it looks like someone took a 747SP, cut the wings just outside the inboard engines, and then (this is the good part) attached the tail from a DC-10. Can anyone tell me what the story is with this bird? - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:49:56 -0700 From: "Erik Hoel" Subject: RE: skunk-works strange 747-type aircraft at Heathrow It looks like a movie prop in the making. I recall that there was another modified 747-100 that was modified for a movie at Heathrow recently. They clipped off the outer two engines, modified the inboard engine pylons to resemble B-52 dual engine pylons, and placed large drop-tank like objects on the outer pylons. Email me directly if you want an image of this. Erik > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] > On Behalf Of D. Allison > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:38 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: skunk-works strange 747-type aircraft at Heathrow > > Hello, > > This isn't exactly "skunkworks" related, but this has to be the best group > to ask. I recently flew thru London's Heathrow airport, and taxied past > the one of the strangest aircraft I've ever seen. Google Maps has a very > good overhead view here: > > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=heathrow+airport&ie=UTF8&ll=51.4 72 > 235,-0.432957&spn=0.001059,0.001805&t=h&om=1 > > (if that wraps too much, try this: http://tinyurl.com/h6ht8 ) > > It's sitting in plain view, right next to the Concorde on static display > (which isn't in the sat photo above). Talk about bizarre, it looks like > someone took a 747SP, cut the wings just outside the inboard engines, and > then (this is the good part) attached the tail from a DC-10. > > Can anyone tell me what the story is with this bird? > > - D - > > David Allison > webmaster@habu.org > > S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T > tm > / \ > / \ > _/ ___ \_ > ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ > \__/ \___/ \__/ > > www.habu.org > The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V15 #11 ********************************* 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