Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Michael Hogan]

..... Even Blind Freddy can see that.

....I find it astonishing that as a moderator you continue to abuse and ridicule members. Your Post #25 in this thread was a clear attempt to ridicule Jack White. Maybe Len found it funny. I just found it puerile.

If you want to go round sighing and calling me "Blind Freddy" (I've no idea what the insult means, but it clearly is an insult), then I suggest you hand back your moderator's badge and become a plain and simple member again.

That clearly would be the right thing for Evan Burton to do. He's strayed far from his stated intentions, made when he began moderating.

Puerile is the perfect choice of word.

[Guest David Guyatt]

This thread has clearly become a "get" Klimkowski affair.

And very unpleasant it is too.

My growing feeling is that unless something is done with balancing the moderation in this forum, the best answer would be for a new forum to be founded, where these insufferabe tag-team baiting tactics would be expressly forbidden.

I will be mostly absent for the next two months, but on my return in September, I would consider financing and managing the administration of such a forum if there was sufficient impetus among members for that.

And no Len, predicting your likely reaction, I won't be reading or responding to any posts you might make on this topic.

David

[Len Colby]

This is in DIRECT contradiction to your statement that it was "...categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s...". Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Evan - the Carter announcement was a limited hangout for political purposes. Reagan took Stealth deep black, and his Air Force Secretary then officially, categorically and explicitly denied the existence of Stealth. As my quotes above demonstrate, the price of keeping Stealth black throughout the 80s was the probable death and injury of pilots: "If you can't bring it home, then you auger it in ... even if you have to go in with it."

The truth it seems lies some where between our positions. Your original claims that the Stealth was completely unknown AND repeatedly denied are of course as Matthew pointed out contradictory. It could only be denied if people had heard about it.

The part about the denial was at best half true, a more accurate version would have been:

“After being leaked to the press and acknowledged by the Carter Administration in 1980 the program was - dismissed as “a paper airplane” by Regan’s Secretary of the Air Force [OR repeatedly denied by the Reagan administration]. Despite this denials [OR these denials] there were numerous articles in the specialized and mainstream press about the program but most were inaccurate. The F117A the first stealth aircraft was made public in 1988.”

You haven’t produced any evidence it was repeatedly denied, you only have one dismissive comment from the Secretary of the Air Force. Even the article you cite mentions congressional hearings about security lapses in 1986.

You are conflating 2 separate but related issues knowledge about the Stealth program in general and knowledge about the F-117A in particular. Despite you claims to the contrary the former was not a secret but was widely reported from the year it went into practical development. The 2nd was a more closely guarded secret but not so much as you make out

Citing your article AGAIN

In June 1986 two Lockheed employees working on the stealth fighter program brought to light that hundreds of documents, tapes, films, and photographs dealing with the aircraft were missing from the company's files. Representative John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who later chaired an investigation into the problem, indicated that there was evidence that Lockheed had falsified audits to conceal the problem.34 In one instance, an employee allegedly removed blueprints of the aircraft in a rolled-up newspaper. The employee then supposedly showed them to his ex-wife and girlfriend, who turned him in.35

[…]

If the goal of the administration was indeed to keep the aircraft's very existence completely secret, the classification program failed. By the tight standards applied to the program, each and every one of the reports discussed earlier in this article was damaging.

But was the objective to keep the aircraft completely secret? … Instead, it seems probable that the intention was to keep the quantity and depth of information revealed to minimal levels…If viewed from this perspective, the world was indeed kept guessing about the aircraft. For every accurate report about the stealth fighter published, several inaccurate ones were produced, although seldom were any completely inaccurate. (This trend continues today despite the declassification of the program.)

The wild card variable in this analysis is the Soviet intelligence community. Given the thoroughness with which that machine penetrated other black programs … combined with the fact that many documents on the F-117A program disappeared, suggests that the Soviets may have learned a great deal about the aircraft despite the extreme security measures which surrounded it.

So it seems “hundreds of documents, tapes, films, and photographs” concerning the F117A went missing, some guy might even have smuggled out the blue prints to impress his ex-wife and girl friend, some of the media accounts about the plane were accurate, the author believes that there is a good chance the Soviets knew the planes technical details. Thus your claim “Stealth technology was developed by hundreds of engineers & designers, guarded by hundreds of security guards, and flown by dozens of pilots (both in tests and operationally) for more than a decade without its existence being known” even if limited the F117A seems not to be true. More accurate would be “…without its existence being known other than to the Soviets, a few journalists and an engineer’s girlfriend and ex-wife”

You have failed to produce evidence that “thousands of people [were] privy to” the technical details of the F117A not available to outsiders knowledgeable about military aviation. It is unlikely the guards for example knew them. Your article even indicates the number of people ‘in the know’ was limited.

To keep the number of personnel assigned to the F-117A units as small as possible, pilots were made to carry out functions that otherwise would have been handled by a separate staff.

You’ve also failed to produce evidence the plane was “flown operationally” before being made public. Acording to Wikipedia citing pg 382 of the book. Don't Tread on Me by H.W Crocker III, the plane’s “first mission was during the United States invasion of Panama in 1989”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nightha..._ref-Tread_24-0

The Federation of American Scientists says the same thing

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-117-action.htm

As does a website about the plane

http://www.f-117a.com/Panama.html

This is the 1st mission mentioned the USAF page about the plane

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=104

As to your theory that this demonstrates that a large number of people could keep a secret like the JFK assassination* or 9/11 secret is silly they are no comparable situations.

* Though I don’t believe LHO acted alone I doubt hundreds let alone thousands of people were “in on” the conspiracy.

[Len Colby]

..... Even Blind Freddy can see that.

....I find it astonishing that as a moderator you continue to abuse and ridicule members. Your Post #25 in this thread was a clear attempt to ridicule Jack White. Maybe Len found it funny. I just found it puerile.

If you want to go round sighing and calling me "Blind Freddy" (I've no idea what the insult means, but it clearly is an insult), then I suggest you hand back your moderator's badge and become a plain and simple member again.

That clearly would be the right thing for Evan Burton to do. He's strayed far from his stated intentions, made when he began moderating.

Puerile is the perfect choice of word.

This rather silly a quick Googling reveals that “even Blind Freddy could see that” is an Australian idiomatic expression that means something is obvious or that someone is missing the obvious. I’ve seen no indication it is derogatory. As for the photo Evan posted are people so uptight here that were can’t even make jokes on this forum? Funny that the people so in a tiff about Evan’s photo and “blind Freddy” comment rarely (if ever) object to the abusive language used almosy daily on this forum.

http://www.aussiecynic.com/?p=157

http://www.australianhistory.org/australian-slang-atod.php

www.butch-femme.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-39415.html

www.geocities.com/Heartland/Garden/2191/phrases.html

www.abc.net.au/newsradio/txt/s1670351.htm

[Len Colby]

This thread has clearly become a "get" Klimkowski affair.

No it's become a "Jan refuses to admit he made an error" tap dance (lap dance take ypur pick)

[Michael Hogan]

This rather silly a quick Googling reveals that “even Blind Freddy could see that” is an Australian idiomatic expression that means something is obvious or that someone is missing the obvious. I’ve seen no indication it is derogatory. As for the photo Evan posted are people so uptight here that were can’t even make jokes on this forum? Funny that the people so in a tiff about Evan’s photo and “blind Freddy” comment rarely (if ever) object to the abusive language used almosy daily on this forum.

As was to be expected, Colby entirely misses the point. Who cares what Blind Freddy means?

While Colby was away from the Forum for a week, there was a notable absence of "bickering" as he and Evan call it and there certainly was no abusive language that I saw.

Upon his return, the bickering resumed. Of course, as always, Colby insists it's the fault of others.

[David G. Healy]

[...]

These are your own quotes - the stealth programme was acknowledged in 1980. Sure, they didn't say exactly what they were working on (the F-117 was being kept secret), and yes it was designed to try and limit what was known / not known. Yes, it was a "political game". I have no problems with that. They may have even tried to misdirect... but they admitted the existence of a stealth programme.

This is in DIRECT contradiction to your statement that it was "...categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s...". Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Shall I direct attention to a little west-central town in Nevada called Tonopah -- the very place (Tonopah located to the immediate northwest of Area 51) where the F-117 was put through its tactical paces a few years prior to deployment in Gulf 1 war (via Nellis [Nevada] and Hollaman [New Mexico] AFB...

Everyone in Southern Nevada (includes Las Vegas) knew, KNEW something big and stealthy was going on in the neighborhood (what with Area 51 just up the street, no resident was surprised)... the "pap" comment for years, from national and local, Washington D.C., Air Force types (and also all resdients of Tonapah) was "no comment and no STEALTH....

There's a wonderful letter from Air Force bigwigs framed and hanging on a wall in the main Tonopah hotel-resturant, congratulating the town for keeping the F-117 STEALTH aircraft project secret (not commenting to prying media cameras -- which were continual and many) under trying circumstances...

[Len Colby]

From Nick Cook, "The Hunt for Point Zero" (online electronic version):

[...]

The F-117A, the bland press release stated, had gone operational in 1983. For five years, its pilots had operated at squadron strength "in the black", roaming the desert night skies of the US Southwest, practising for the nighttime attack mission they would be required to perform in a war.

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

During the F-117A's five years of secret ops, thousands of workers had been involved in the assembly process at Burbank; hundreds more in supporting the aircraft at Tonopah. And yet, not one had breathed a word about it.

The big story in November 1988, then, related to the existence and capabilities of the Stealth fighter, a programme that rivaled the scale and daring of the Manhattan Project almost fifty years earlier. Like the bomb programme, the F-117A had been meticulously covered up, but unlike the bomb programme, the secrecy had held.

Neither I nor anyone else ever denied thousands of people worked on the F117. I pointed out you had failed to produce evidence to back that claim. Now you have. Unfortunately Cook doesn’t source his claims so this is hardly definitive. But let’s assume it’s true how many of the factory workers knew any details other than the factory location that weren’t already known? Despite the Regan administration’s denial of or refusal to comment on the existence of the program, development of a stealth fighter was reported as fact throughout the 80’s.

And secrecy might not have been as complete as Cook makes out. See the excerpts from the article you linked about all the hundreds documents etc that disappeared either they were misplaced or they were handed over to a 3rd party most likely a foreign power. Still keeping the program secret to such an extent was a remarkable feat.

As to the question of pilots being killed due to the secrecy of the program I found this:

Of the 59 Lockheed-built stealth fighters seven were lost to crashes.

Tail No. 785 was lost 20 April 1982 during takeoff from the runway at Groom Lake installation (Area 51) near the Nevada Test Site, a few miles outside of Las Vegas. The test pilot escaped serious injury, and the cause of the crash was due to equipment which controls the plane having been mistakenly reversed.

Tail No. 792 went down 11 July 1986 near Bakersfield, California killing the pilot.

Tail No. 815 crashed 14 October 1987 at Nellis Air Force Range, NV killing the pilot.

Tail No. 801 went down 4 August 1992 in NM, pilot ejected safely after losing control.

Tail No. 822 crashed 10 May 1995 in NM, the pilot was killed.

Tail No. 793 was lost 14 September 1997 during an air show in Md., Pilot ejected safely.

Tail No. 806 was lost 27 March 1999 in combat over Yugoslavia as mentioned above. [Pilot ejected safely was rescued before being captured by the Serbs

Of the three pilots killed in the crashes of 792, 815 and 822 pilot fatigue and disorientation were blamed on the crashes.

http://journals.aol.com/riversharki/JESUSL...ce-of-wings/916

So assuming the information is accurate there were 7 crashes leading to three death only two of which were during the black period. True they were blamed on fatigue but so was the 1995 crash.

The following pages corroborate the information above

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/baugher_us/f117.html

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/f117.htm

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vHPV1...t=clnk&cd=7

I neither want nor expect an apology. The truth is more than sufficient

Why would you think anyone owed you an apology?

[Len Colby]

This rather silly a quick Googling reveals that “even Blind Freddy could see that” is an Australian idiomatic expression that means something is obvious or that someone is missing the obvious. I’ve seen no indication it is derogatory. As for the photo Evan posted are people so uptight here that were can’t even make jokes on this forum? Funny that the people so in a tiff about Evan’s photo and “blind Freddy” comment rarely (if ever) object to the abusive language used almosy daily on this forum.

As was to be expected, Colby entirely misses the point. Who cares what Blind Freddy means?

What curious 'logic' - the meaning of a phrase isn’t relevant to question of whether or not its use is insulting

While Colby was away from the Forum for a week, there was a notable absence of "bickering" as he and Evan call it and there certainly was no abusive language that I saw.

Upon his return, the bickering resumed. Of course, as always, Colby insists it's the fault of others.

In most cases it is. When no one disagrees “bickering” is unlikely to break out. I frequently challenge people when I believe they are false or unsupported but I normally do so in a polite manner. The problem is some members here don’t take well to having their pet notions challenged and lash out at those who do so. I won’t claim that I never throw the 1st stone but normally it’s the other guy. Often, as now, I refrain from responding in kind to unprovoked insults.

[Matthew Lewis]

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

While it could have other meanings depending on who is talking, my understanding is that a particular platform is "operational" once they have reached enough aircraft to stand up an entire squadron and if necessary be deployed. For example, the F-22 Was considered "operational" a couple of years ago (I can't remember exactly when) when the squadron at Langley got enough jets but the F-22 has yet to see any combat.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Mods are not doing their job, let me quickly explain my stance. Unless rules conserning members behaviour are being broken I don't see the need for moderation, you're all grown-ups after all, and should be able to withstand a little "rough and tumble" in the debate.

[Evan Burton]

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

It can be a little grey at times, but generally when an aircraft system goes operational, it means that it is no longer considered to be interim or introductory; it is the same as any other weapon system. For instance, we obtained the operational release for the Seahawk at the end of the 1980s but it wasn't used "in anger" until the early 1990s.

Many weapon systems are operational yet never are "used in anger".

[Evan Burton]

BTW, I do have to apologise for letting the thread go off topic - that was my bad. Jack, sorry for letting that happen.

We can discuss the stealth matter further in a new thread, if people like.

[Guest David Guyatt]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Mods are not doing their job, let me quickly explain my stance. Unless rules conserning members behaviour are being broken I don't see the need for moderation, you're all grown-ups after all, and should be able to withstand a little "rough and tumble" in the debate.

There is no suggestion that the Mods are not doing their jobs. The suggestion is that the rules are not now up to the task. Specifically what is being addressed is that baiting and confrontation should now be expressly forbidden.

Posts that are intended to inflame passions should be inhibited. This is common practice on other forums.

This thread is a classical example of one that started off gently and pleasantly enough -- debating issues -- but soon degenerating to become purposely confrontational and argumentative. This is something that appears to happen frequently without care, concern or censure... apparently.

The bad feelings this generates is quite widespread, deep and enduring. Please mark my words on this.

What is being asked for is a reassessment of moderating rules to inhibit baiting tactics and purposeful confrontation.

However, if what is wanted is outrageous lock & load rock and roll, then that's what will happen.

I would be deighted if such new rules were enacted and enforced. However, my expectation is that they wont. Which is why I again reiterate my offer to finance and administrate another independent forum to discuss these issues where more stringent rules about confrontation and behaviour will be enforced. It may be that there won't be any uptake of this offer, which will be fine by me, my limited pocket and time commitments elsewhere. But at least this option will be available for members who do not wish to visit here every day to witness yet another unmoderated outbreak of deflective trivia or flame war.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

While Colby was away from the Forum for a week, there was a notable absence of "bickering" as he and Evan call it and there certainly was no abusive language that I saw.

Upon his return, the bickering resumed. Of course, as always, Colby insists it's the fault of others.

This Michael is the heart of the matter. Quite why this has been permitted for so long is a mystery to me.