PART 2
#: 182317 S10/Paranormal Issues
22-Oct-91 05:28:22
Sb: CIRCLE.TXT
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: All
The CompuServe thread which followed the Sept. 22 upload of
CIRCLE.TXT to ISSUES/PARANORMAL Lib. 10, can be found in
SPACE or ASTRONOMY Libs. 17 under the title CIRCIS.TXT.
Most of the thread took off over there, and anybody who
wants to pick it up will find it current as of Oct. 19. It
is text-with-line-breaks, right margin adjusted for ease of
use of file viewing utilities, and loading by
wordprocessors.
Bob
#: [PRIVATE] S7/Extraterrestrials?
23-Oct-91 --------
Sb: CIRCLES.txt
Fm: -------------------------
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
I think Hubble's orbit is only about 380 miles or so, way
below geosynchronous
orbit.
------------------
#: ------ S0/Outbox File
23-Oct-91 19:58:00
Sb: CIRCLES.txt
Fm: SPACEFOR REP -----
To: [PRIVATE]----------------
Thanks for responding, ----. I can't tell from the header
if your reference to the Hubble orbit includes reference
from CIRCIS.TXT, the CIS thread that followed CIRCLE.TXT.
(Lib. 17, ASTRO or SPACE.)
It was offered here that the orbit was 600 Km., 97 minute
period. Your figured may be more correct. The group of
interested writers who got involved in the thread uploaded
in CIRCLE.TXT were given a tour at JPL, wheere we understood
that the original hope was for the 25,000 mile GEO orbit,
and to link the Hubble in space, before deployment, with a
second Shuttle payload containing a nuclear powerpack and
auxiliary thruster system. This would have made possible
retrievability from GEO orbit by means of controllable
decaying orbit. 670 Km was designated as the highest
possible parking orbit at which it could be recovered,
serviced and fueled in space, then redeployed on the same
mission. We were even showed a mockup of the "spectacles"
with which the mirror abberations were to be corrected.
If the 380 mi (440 Km?) is the present case, it could have
done to enable more energetic efforts to do debuggings from
here while we wait til '93, the scheduled repair mission.
When the thread (as in CIRCIS.TXT) moved to S3/Shuttle
Observation? (where the 670 Km altitude was offered us), and
further discussion held on that premise) there were also
offered some good reasons that the Hubble would not have
been meant to to operate at such low orbits.
/SPLIT
SP7
#: --------- S7/Extraterrestrials?
--------- --------
Sb: -------CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
[Continued]
If the Hubble were meant to operate at even 600 mi., it
would be close enough to the highest penetration of the
ionosphere to make radio-telescopy unreliable at best. The
97 minute period would also require a much larger propulsion
and power reserve given the short exposure to a number of
essential guide stars. Likewise, target position fixing
becomes more precise at longer periods of orbit. One of the
early conjectural problems voiced in the original Hubble
proposals included the difficulty of obtaining enough
portion of the (then) 68,000 lb. Shuttle payload weight with
enough maneuvering system to give a long shelf life. When
the mission rules after Challenger were reduced to 48,000
lbs. this became a major problem.
You're correct in pointing out that a factual mistatement
exists about the Hubble actually being in GEO orbit. This
was followed up in CIRCIS.TXT, here on CIS, and we were
happy for it. We want to get the numbers right.
If you didn't see the messages involved, that scenarion that
suggested, and went from "no way" to "now that you mention
it, why not", and was noted out how easy it would be to
nudge a GEO satellite downward to initiate a slow,
controlled orbital decay.
Payload-linking and orbital redeployment were on the list of
Shuttle exercises before the Challenger disaster. I'll see
if I can find out exactly where Hubble is, at the moment.
Thanks for drawing my attention to your sense of it.
Bob
#: 92897 S3/Satellite Observing
25-Oct-91 07:37:41
Sb: #92707-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Robert,
I am familiar with many of the things you mention.
However, I think my comments still stand.
In the lunar retrreflector project, the beamwidth at
lunar distance was not a couple yards as you seem to think
but a couple miles. (See Sky & Telescope, Feb. 1972, p. 88).
This particular beam included the focusing effects of a 60-
inch reflecting telescope. I find it hard to beleive they
hoisted a 1000-inch-plus telescope to geosynch orbit.
In addition, from geosynch orbit you could not aim the
beam with any accuracy. To be able to hit a target within a
200-foot circel, your aiming acuraccy would have to be
better than 0.2-second of arc (about 0.000046 degree). This
is impossible to achieve with ground-based telescopes, let
alone one that is wobbling around in geosync orbit. This is
why "spy" sattelites are in low Earth orbit rather than
geosynch orbits. They can get a much better look at the
surface.
Please note I am not (yet) arguing with the thesis, just
the geosynch delivery system. A satellite left in low Earth
orbit by the Shuttle make a lot more sense.
- Bert
#: 92911 S3/Satellite Observing
25-Oct-91 21:53:35
Sb: #92897-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
Bert, I'm pleased that we've reached a point where what is
(yet) being discussed is not the main thesis, but the
specifics of the delivery platform itself. Re the lunar
reflectors - yes, there were finely modeled parabolic
reflectors at both ends of the experiments - which were
conducted in the '70's. The beamwidth at lunar distance *and
back*, a total of 476,000 miles, 19 times the 25,000 mile
distance a collimated beam would have to travel from a GEO
satellite, was a couple of miles.
So for the sake of discussion, let's adjust the distance a
bit, and add almost twenty years of R & D. some of which was
at the Hughes laser-dedicated research facility at Malibu,
about a half hour from my home near Santa Monica. My father
was a senior scientist at Hughes Aerospace in El Segundo,
first on the Surveyor Project, then Voyager. He never
breached security with me, but I had a sense of some of the
new stuff coming down the pipe. (He passed away in 1981.
He would have loved the crop formations),
If your hypothetical ground-based telescope had the benefit
of the newer, relatively high temperature superconducting
elecromagnetic collimation devices now routinely in use -
particularly in high energy maser emission - the problems of
focus, not to mention the relative mechanical stability of a
space-borne platform - become academic, because if I knew
how far such research had come, especially given the ambient
conditions of temperature in space, it would be at the
highest levels of classification and needto-know, as were so
many of the Shuttle flights, starting around the same time
the crop circles began to appear. Here we can only
brainstorm.
About stability, and spy satellite;
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 92912 S3/Satellite Observing
25-Oct-91 21:53:50
Sb: #92911-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
A gyro-stabilized GEO satellite, will indeed precess, or
wobble. As a pilot I know the need to constantly correct a
gyro compass against a magnetic one to compensate this. It
takes a lot less hardware and fuel expenditure to briefly
stabilize a GEO-satellite on a ground point than it would to
line up a spy satellite with a point on the earth, then
rotate the emission/detection device to "pan" below over a
point over which the satellite is traveling at high speed.
Further, the risk of malfunction in a non-stationary system
would be unacceptable. The GEO's are more stable than you
might think. Ships and aircraft get position fixing to the
second of arc from them.
If you also consider the operations of radio astronomy or
simply holding on a spot on a Uranian moon, using guide
stars over the distances involved in such missions,
satellites can and may already be able to use a laser'ed hot
spot on the earth as a psuedo guide star for relatively
short term super-accurate stabilization. There is another
interesting factor - the presence in the Wiltshire area
(Horstmanceaux castle), with a strange recent history, near
or at which is the Royal Greenwich Observatory facility for
doing (at least) two things. One is the refinement of
orbital device tracking - another is precise measurement of
the rotation of the earth.
Since CEO orbit is defined as one where orbital velocity
exactly matches the speed of the rotation of the earth
beneath it, this seems convenient. The only indication of
drift by the source, in the circles themselves, is that many
are very slightly elliptical.
There is another argument against non-GEO emitters...
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 92913 S3/Satellite Observing
25-Oct-91 21:54:03
Sb: #92912-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
A non-stationary spy satellite have a couple of problems in
common. The telescope has to deal first with the thickest
part of the atmosphere, then the rest, and by the time a
resolved image is procured a lot of diffraction and
refraction has occured. Especially at oblique angles, since
off the vertical, the amount of atmosphere to penetrate
increases. Flying directly over an airport on a smoggy day,
it looks very clear. But when approaching at an angle for
landing, one enters the smog layer and is looking into it
edgewise, and visibility can drop from 50 miles to 1/4 mile
in an instant. That's why a lot of L.A. pilots have
instrument ratings.
A non stationary spy sattelite faces not only the same
difficulties (and, by the way, many of the pictures you see
are extracted from much larger ones. It isn't always in the
center of the pass), but even overhead the total path
through atmosphere is probably at least 20 or more % of its
altitude. From 25000 miles, given the extremely sharply
collimated and amplified emissions it figures are now
possible - relative atmospheric effects are far less.
Finally, given the quantity and frequency of the crop
events, I can't imagine a spy satellite's overflight not
being correlated to the on-site realities. A GEO, on the
other hand, can be damned hard to find if you don't know
where to look, or at least when and where it was deployed.
You won't learn either from the preflight manual of a secret
Shuttle mission.
And please note, I appreciate the "devil's advocacy." The
truth might be somewhere between us.
Bob
#: 92922 S3/Satellite Observing
26-Oct-91 07:20:08
Sb: #92913-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Actually, the Global Positioning System (NavStar)
satellites are not in geosync orbits. The orbits are
approximately 20,000 km with a 718 minute period. Position
is derived from time delay measurements from 3 or more
satellites. The receivers periodically download an ephmeris
from the satellites to update orbital elements.
Also, as an author and user of satellite tracking
software, I can say that, from a computational viewpoint,
finding a geosync satellite is an order of magnitude easier
than a low earth orbiting one.
cheers -fjh
#: 92945 S3/Satellite Observing
26-Oct-91 21:35:19
Sb: #92922-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
Thanks for the information about the NavStar orbits, Frank.
I knew they used three for position fixing, but hadn't
realized they operated at that much velocity. The
downloading of an ephemeris to update orbital elements is
remarkable, no matter how jaded one gets. (All those hours
with a Weems plotter, fine print in red light, and a sextant
bubble that refused to fit the little bullseye pocket, loran
that could only doodle...)
When you refer to the relative ease of finding a low earth
orbiting satellite compared to a GEO, do you mean that with
radar alone, without seeds such as deployment data?
Would this also be true if the the time, place and altitude
at which the object deployed were unknown, (in the case of
the GEO) and it emitted no radio frequency energy in any
mode other than a very narrow beam to/from another
satellite? Can a GEO be (easily) found with radar alone?
I appreciate the specifics Frank, and the following isn't
meant to be evasive. Presuming, as my side of the thread
does, that the events under discussion are part of an
international co-venture, probably including the British,
and the classification level would be pretty high; is it
within the capability of equipment available to amateurs to
locate a non-emmitting GEO satellite from within a 100 mile
circle of its Clarke station? Especially if it were
designed to have very low optical (and other) reflectivity?
Your on-the-job expertise is very appreciated. My apologies
if any of the questions push the limits of prudence,
security-wise. But, some amateurs might want to take "a
look," if it's possible.
Bob
#: 92995 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 20:37:44
Sb: #92913-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Bob,
I feel like I'm slogging through mud on this one. I do
not work for the gov't, and have no idea what they are doing
in the "secret labs". Since most of your arguments come
back to "recent advances in secret research" only available
to those with a "need to know", how can I argue against
anything?
Perhaps they have put a secret automated base on the Moon.
Have you checked the circles to see if their correlation
matches the Moon being in the sky? How about Mars, Venus,
or Mercury? See my problem, you can always hypothesize a
pointing/trageting accuracy available in the secret labs
with some exotic beam-collimation technique to move back as
far as you want.
My comments about the laser beam are trying to say that
the spread is *NOT* due to the poor '60's technology, but
due to the natural laws of physics regarding light. Unless
some active role is taken en-route, the beam WILL spread no
matter how it is generated.
I cannot think of anyway to overcome the "secret lab"
problem. It reminds me of the UFO arguments I had in the
sixty's. When asked for proof that UFO (read extraterestial
visitors) exist, they would always say that there was a
secret government conspiricy to hide the data. The good
data was hidden (at Wright-Patterson AFB as I remember), or
was ridiculed and made to look phoney. Hence, you could
never argue with them since, according to them, the proof is
right there: just get the government to release it and we
will all be beleivers.
Unfortunately, I think I may have to put this one into
the "yes-maybe-but it doesn't matter until it's proved". My
favorite line was "UFO's may or may not exist, but I am not
going to worry about it until a large metal saucer lands in
Grant Park (downtown Chicago, IL) and Michael Renne walks
out followed by an 8-foot metal robot" (a la "The Day the
Earth Stood Still") <g>.
-Bert
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93009 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 22:23:32
Sb: #92995-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Dick DeLoach, Sysop 76703,303
To: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
I agree with David Letterman, who listed among the Top Ten
Things We As Americans Can Be Proud Of, the fact that more
AMERICANS have actually been abducted by extraterestrials
than citizens of any other country in the whole world... -)
(<-- DDL's tongue-in-cheek symbol <g>)
--- Dick
#: 93011 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 22:39:33
Sb: #92995-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
Bert, I sympathize with the sense of mud-slogging you find
yourself in. It feels like that from this side of the
argument, too. I don't know what's happening in secret labs
this year. Or last year. I *saw* what was happening twenty
years ago, and given the exponential rate of technological
progress, I don't have a problem with presuming considerable
advancement on a large scale, given the advancements in
medical applications on a small scale which were even more
inconceivable then.
One if the new technologies which is not a secret is the
progress in high temperature superconductive technologies,
and their ability to enable electromagnetic fields, and the
use of such fields in generating and collimating and
amplifying laser and maser emissions. In the uploaded file,
CIRCLE.TXT, there are ample references to laser collimation
references which are more substantive than the vague
references space limitations allow here.
And yes, a laser or a maser beam will spread, but from a
couple of millimeters to a hundred yards over a 25,000 mile
distance, given the fact of zero G, low ambient temperature,
and the efficiency of superconductive elements in space, I
don't think this scenario steps outside the bounds of
natural law.
The robot and Michael Rennie were Gork and Klaatu. I can
never remember which is which...
I understand your skepticism, Bert, and respect it. Thanks
for the suggestion about the secret lunar base. I'll check
it out. The only UFO's I've referred to are person-made
ones.
Bob
#: 92947 S3/Satellite Observing
26-Oct-91 21:36:27
Sb: #92911-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
...as were so many of the Shuttle flights, starting around
the same time the crop circles began to appear.<<
Bob, just so the timeline of this phenomena is clear; the
first well photographed and investigated crop circle was
found at a place called Headbourne Worthy (Wiltshire area)
in the summer of 1978. Interestingly enough, it was not
just a simple circle but a large inner circle with 4 smaller
circles grouped around it in the now familiar "footpad"
pattern. See "Circular Evidence" by Delgado and Andrews.
From all accounts it was essentially identical to many of
the patterns still being produced in 1990 and 1991.
As you are probably aware, the first shuttle flight was on
4/12/81, nearly 3 years later. The first shuttle flight
with a DOD payload was 6/27/82, about 4 years later.
#: 92957 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 06:04:35
Sb: #92945-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
Aside from the computational aspect, searching for a GEO
object versus a low orbiting one in an unknown orbit would
also be easier. The time factor is eliminated and you are
looking in a narrow band of sky for a stationary object as
opposed to searching the whole sky and not knowing if the
object is in line of sight at the time. The deployment
parameters really don't matter as the altitude/period are
determined by the object being geosync. The only unknown is
the orbital longitude. The optical/radar visibility would
depend on the size/shape and surface characteristics, of
course. GEO satellites are seen frequently by amateur
astronomers and other observers under favorable lighting
conditions. Also, a number of the 'secret' shuttle payloads
have been observed during deployment and subsequently
tracked by amateur observers, although their orbital
elements are not officially published. Those that I'm aware
of (I'm not completely up to date), believed to be KH type
recon satellites and, indeed, SDI related payloads, have
been in low earth orbits. None of the above precludes your
theory of course. My only objection would be that with
thousands of square miles of closed test ranges available (I
spent a good portion of my USAF career tramping around some
of them, on unrelated (and unmentionable<g>) projects), I
don't see the the necessity for publically plowing up
farmer's fields.
cheers -fjh
#: 46594 S3/Probes/Satellites
27-Oct-91 22:08:43
Sb: #CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
Erik, if I'm to cling to the idea of Shuttle deployment as
an exclusive, or even primary delivery system, I have to
take your observations on the time line very seriously. The
only qualifier in the pursuit of further distillation
concerns what we can and can't presume about the reliability
of information; that being the amount of disinformation
common even the inside a project infrastructure.
That said, I find myself with new questions. One being "how
knowable" is the date of the first DoD payload, and how
"knowable" is the nature of some which may have preceded it?
I've read Delgado and others - and have seen detailed
photography of early formations compared to later ones. The
increasing sophistication and complexity - as well as
quantity - becomes an unmistakeable progression. The
Barbury formation of July, 1991, renders a general hoax less
credible than ever.
The question most important to my basic hypothesis might be,
how much payload could be placed in high orbit from a
conventional rocket booster in the late '70's? Published
figures for the Shuttle are 65,000 pounds, reduced to 48,000
under post Challenger mission rules. I'd only add that
having worked an early division of RAND, Santa Monica, in an
editorial capacity that included orchestration of press
releases re true or fancied classification levels of
specific missions, there did/do exist disinforming cloaking
strategies in the publication of information.
You have, however, required that I investigate conventional
booster capabilities. I may have to be more flexible about
exclusive Shuttle deployment.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 46595 S3/Probes/Satellites
27-Oct-91 22:08:53
Sb: #46594-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
This is just anecdotal to torture satellite observers, Erik.
I live near the Pacific coast, about forty miles from
Vandenberg, AFB. We are frequently treated to a light-show
when the mission includes ionosphere studies and photo-
active substances are discharged. And of course the landing
path of many Shuttles into Edwards places their multible
sonic booms right over our heads. That's how we know when to
go turn on CNN.
We also frequently see regular launches headed down the
Pacific Missile Range. If the Satellite Observers are
organized, I suspect you guys must maintain a "Woops..."
watch in the public mountain country not far away. A lot of
those launches are a surprise even to the Vandenberg
personnel scrambled to make them. Some of the launches
which turn out to be the most innocently described to the
launch personnel, have a way of departing their "need-to-
know" along with the booster.
Bob
#: 46596 S3/Probes/Satellites
27-Oct-91 22:09:08
Sb: #CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
Frank, the "why there?" question is one which came up early
in the thread of CIRCLE.TXT, and at length in the
accompanying CIRCIS.TXT (Lib. 17) which contains much of the
CompuServe thread which ensued upon the upload of the prior
Sept. 22 upload to ISSUES/PARANORMAL Lib. 10 (and currently
in Lib 17, here).
The question as to detectability of a GEO that didn't want
to be found... how important to finding it *is* knowledge of
its longitude? And, if the time of deployment and angle of
insertion were cloaked, does that make the task more
difficult?
Having had a bit of "Think Tank" experience as a dept.
editor for what then was a division of RAND (Later the
System Develp. Corp, Santa Monica), the use of Wiltshire was
made to order, and one of the cleverest covers I can
imagine. The area in that 100 mile circle, roughly centered
on Avebury, with Stonehenge not far away, already has in
place over 5,000 years of local history loaded with images
and a metaphysical tradition. Many of the figures we see,
starting with the plainer circles, start to look startingly
as though their stencils had been made from Kabbalistic,
Sufic, Celtic, even 17th Cent. Rosicrucian iconography. Add
to this the widespread interest in the area's system of Ley
lines, stone and earth circles, and the presence on site of
an RGO facility directly involved with satellite position
fixing and earth-rotation (Horstmanceaux, press releases
notwithstanding), the rules of evidence become unmaneagable.
It's an old story - the best possible cover for a new one.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 46597 S3/Probes/Satellites
27-Oct-91 22:09:21
Sb: #46596-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
Re test ranges, I have the impression that you've shlepped
to and through your share of them, Frank. You know the
logistical problems of access, and the visibility of ground
movement that would be anomalous to those spySats which
routinely monitor such ground activity. I still don't know
if you've actually seen good pictures of the more complex
ones, but there is one called "the fly" which looks very
much like an ancient Anasazi (Ariz.) petroglyph I have in a
collection of rubbings and drawings produced by the
Smithsonian in the 1870's. A sense of humor or a mistake?
Almost every one of the more complex formations (and the
simpler ones) bears almost identicality to the historical
sites and metaphysical iconography.
I'm in private correspondence with several of the on site
researchers, and it's a topic of some merriment about all
the electronic gear being dragged about by some of the
"tourists," who often make sure to buy a T-shirt. This is a
quote from a note I got today on another forum, from the
UK...
"In the UK, Channel 4 has just broadcast a program in the
Equinox series on crop circles. Unfortunately, they didn't
mention the 'Star War' theories. [Either has anybody
else...]. The one conventional scientist on there was
hopelessly outnumbered by paranormal weirdos and
'parascientists.' His plasma vortices were totally
unconvincing when you look at the 'pictograms'. So its nice
that he has recanted and now says that only the circular
ones are 'genuine' coz his theory only fits those."
He goes on to describe a convincing hoax demonstration, but
not up to the numbers and complexities observe. The rules
of evidence are unmaneagable.
Bob
#: 93013 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 23:46:29
Sb: CIRCLE.txt (woops...)
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Eric Albrekston 70312,3576
Eric, my response to your #92947 wound up over on
SPACE/Probes/Satellites, also S3 there. It's #46594.
Tapcis did it, of course. Human error is inconcievable...
I'll post a redirection there, too. They must be very
confused. Sorry.
Bob
#: 93014 S3/Satellite Observing
27-Oct-91 23:46:35
Sb: CIRCLE.txt (woops II..)
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
As in a prior to Erik Albrekston, Frank, my reply to your #
92957 here got misdirected to SPACE/Probes/Satellites and is
# 46596 there. My apologies.
Bob
#: 46599 S3/Probes/Satellites
27-Oct-91 23:47:19
Sb: CIRCLE.txt (wrong forum)
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: All
I apologize for the misdirection of #'s 46594 and 46956 to
this forum. They were in response to #'s 92947 and 92957 on ASTROFORUM/Satellite Observing - also S3. (Tapcis error of
course... <blush>)
For the thoroughly confused, but possibly intrigued, the
accidently diverted thread is one which ensued from the
Sept. 22 upload of CIRCLE.TXT to ISSUES/PARANORMAL Lib. 10.
This and the bulk of the lengthy CompuServe thread which
has ensued (CIRCIS.TXT) can both be found in Lib. 17 (new
uploads).
CIRCLE.TXT is the upload of a non-metaphysical thread from
the "Science & Health" forum of the (members only) BBS of
the Writers' Guild of America, West, (WGA), Los Angeles. It
deals mostly with a theory that (some of) the "crop events"
of Wiltshire, UK, and other places, are artifacts of SDI
related tests conducted from Shuttle deployed GEO
satellites.
Again, my regrets over any confusion, though more than a few
think it's all mine.
Bob
#: 93019 S3/Satellite Observing
28-Oct-91 08:20:37
Sb: #93014-CIRCLE.txt (woops II..)
Fm: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
No problem, I found it <g>.
If you know a GEO's orbital longitude, a relatively simple
trig calculation tells you exactly where to look (See the
file SATELL.TXT in LIB 3 for the formula). All the other
orbital elements necessary to find LEO objects 'drop out'.
If the longitude is unknown, knowing the deployment
parameters might give you a clue as to position, but only if
you had other data in hand, such as the delta-v involved,
etc. As I said, it comes down to searching for a stationary
object that you know is in line of sight in a narrow strip
of sky versus searching the whole sky for an object with an
unknown transit time in the case of a LEO sat. If
concealment was the main priority, a sat in a high
inclination LEO with large maneuvering fuel reserves,
allowing frequent orbit changes to inhibit recovering it's
orbital parameters from sporadic observation, would be my
(admittedly amateur) choice. As to test range use,
'unusual' ground activity is 'usual' there and I believe it
attracts less attention there than elsewhere. Truckloads of
equipment setting up in the middle of nowhere and then
vanishing abruptly are routine, as are unexplained (unless
you're involved) lights, noises and other phenomena. Also,
it has been, and I assume still, been common practice to
combine the activities of various projects to further
confuse the issue for potential observers, allowing one
project to serve as 'cover' if you will, for another.
cheers -fjh
#: 93047 S3/Satellite Observing
28-Oct-91 19:10:33
Sb: #93011-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Bob Norton / NM 72167,3420
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Bob,
Gort (not Gork) was the robot. Klaatu was Michael Rennie.
BTW, "Klaatu Verato Nektu" is VERY corrupt Esperanto for
"Klaatu Truly Dead".
Bob
#: 93015 S3/Satellite Observing
28-Oct-91 00:44:51
Sb: #92995-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
You might check out, for instance, the work that was
declassified a few months ago, on the laser focussing
(ground to air in this case) problem, work that the DoD has
been conducting in secret since 1981 (just at the time the
cruder crop circles began to appear in earnest). (2
articles, and a news editorial in Nature, about a month
ago.) This was released only when civilian researchers
essentially duplicated the work on their own.
A Secret Lab is a clumsy term for it suggests underground
complexes, and radar-dodging, and camouflage painted silos.
The lab may be right in the middle of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and you can walk, drive, or row past it; but
some of the work that goes on inside may very well be highly
secret. And even the lowest of the many levels of secrecy
imposed on government sponsored work may be sufficient to
keep all but the most indefatigably curious ignorant
of the work.
Secret labs exist, if not in this country, then certainly in
others. We bombed them recently, for instance. But do you
really believe that there is no work of substance being
carried on under conditions of secrecy in this country? And
if money is appropriated for work in a certain field of
research, is it unreasonable to think that research is being
carried on in those fields?
#: 93060 S3/Satellite Observing
29-Oct-91 00:15:28
Sb: #93019-CIRCLE.txt (woops II..)
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Frank Hentschel 75126,72
You found it. Sigh...
I'm very grateful for the information, Frank. You may be an
amateur, but you're certainly an astute one, and in offering
the LEO scenario, you made a very welcome contribution to
the general "brainstorm" on this issue. The intention from
the start was to generate informed discussion about an
enigma, the crop events, beginning with the path of least
resistance offered by concentrating on the known effects of
known technologies, and adjusting as required, until the
theory is shot down beyond resurrection.
I suspect we could trade "cover ploy" stories far into the
night/day (one of the unknowns that makes telecommunications
so magical), and know enough not to. The ones you cite are
time honored.
It might be of general interest that some years back a
simultaneous triple launch took place at Vandenberg,
observed from L.A. because of a full moon and an icy alto-
cirrus layer. An air traffic controller friend who was
involved in "range safety" told me, but only after it was in
the newspapers, that the launches were indeed simultaneous,
but though ATC had been told they were weapons tests, the
payloads were inserted into orbit, and never arrived at the
target zone. Nor did any further information about the
unusual launch, which people near Vandenberg thought was an
earthquake.
Bob
#: 93140 S3/Satellite Observing
30-Oct-91 17:13:54
Sb: CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Bob, the occasional references to Herstmonceaux Castle as a
possible participant in the crop circle phenomena piqued my
curiosity. Got out the maps and made a call or two and
confirmed that, indeed, not too long ago it was affiliated
with the Royal Greenwich Observatory. It was the home of the
UK's Atomic Clock. Was sold to private interests in 1985
and is not currently open to the public. The observatory
itself is now located in Cambridge. Nothing too surprising
in all that. What did surprise me was the actual location
of Herstmonceaux Castle. It is in East Sussex, about 40
miles southeast of London near the village of Hailsham.
Absolutely nowhere near the crop circle activity in
Wiltshire which is at least 100 miles due west. Don't
remember who originally brought up this subject but it's
clearly a red herring.
#: 93156 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 05:15:10
Sb: #93140-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
Erik, I'm not *quite* <g> ready to concede Herstmonceaux as
a red herring, at least not based on its being 100 miles due
east of the major crop circle activity. I had thought it
more central than that, but 100 miles seems close enough for
the purpose. I should quote the information I got from a UK
source. It doesn't exclude yours, but does go a bit
further, and who's to say what really goes on behind closed
doors. That's not a hedge, but a concession that multiple
accounts exist. If anybody knows the following to be
untrue, It's into the red herring pond for Herstomnceaux.
"The Satellite Laser Ranger scope at Herstmonceaux is still
(1991) used by the RGO for measuring orbits of artificial
satellites, for measuring precise earth-rotation-parameters.
The work of the RGO is quite interesting -mostly design and
maintenance of of the new equipment at La Palma, and
development of new technology in astronomical research (both
telescopes and data collection/processing equipment."
I have no idea where La Palma is, by the way. But, the
first 2 1/2 sentences of the above quote seem compellingly
relevant to what might be required of whatever spaceborne
system we ultimately define, if any. If the above is
correct, the actual location of a data link site could be
anywhere, and very inconspicuous.
We have established, however, that different accounts of the
major activity of Herstonceaux vary. "All of the above"
might be the case. I hope someone with specific knowledge
and free to share it will help us out, here.
Bob
#: 93160 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 05:40:42
Sb: #93011-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Bob,
I think I will read both CIRCLE.TXT and the thread before
replying again, though I think my arguments stand. I feel
that they are based on physical laws which I do not think
technology can overcome.
I'll message you when I come up with a better answer.
-Bert
#: 93166 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 10:00:55
Sb: #93156-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
In my note around the corner, I also make the mistake of
placing Herstmonceaux (will someone please tell us how to
spell it -- I've misplaced all six volumes of my Augustus
Hare) in the midst of the Crop Circle activity.
I feel it necessary to point out two things here. One is
that if crop circles are the result of SDI testing, there is
no conspiracy. There is secret military testing, as there
has been secret military testing since the Italians were
trying to figure out how to make gunpowder kill people --
and it was old then. Any actual conspiracy is mounted for
the purpose of maintaining secrecy about the project, and
not for the success of the project itself.
Bob, I think you acquiesce too quickly in the matter of
Herstmonceaux. The castle was abandoned abruptly and
without warning, the Observatory moved awkwardly to another
location entirely. It was sold for so little money to a
developer that there is a small protest movement got up
against the gov't's action. Two years later, and nothing
done with the development, it was auctioned to two groups:
an anonymous American investors company, and a large
Japanese firm, who sued one another, insuring that the
facility remains doing exactly what it is doing now:
satellite tracking etc. If we are right, then this
sequence of events makes good sense; if we are wrong, then
this sequence of events makes no pattern and no sense
whatever.
The British Gov't had >some< reason for doing what they did
with Herstmonceaux, and it could be very very trivial -- a
clerk got tired of being castigated for misspelling the
damned name, and set into motion a chain of nudges that
resulted in... But I think it more likely that the British
gov't wanted the place for satellite work, work they wanted
to keep private. (This isn't necessarily to do with crop
circles, I understand.)
#: 93187 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 20:15:11
Sb: #93156-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Bob, your observations notwithstanding, the attention being
directed to Herstmonceaux (which is, BTW, the correct
spelling) justs seems totally unwarranted. First, it is
*nowhere* near any concentration of crop circle activity (10
Downing Street is closer to Wiltshire than Herstmonceaux!);
Second, the fact that the public is aware of the facility
makes it an unlikely candidate inasmuch as the UK no doubt
has other more strategically located secret research
installations; Third, the real estate transactions
concerning its sale suggest nothing more sinister than
routine government bungling. No doubt, had the sale been
done more cleanly and less publicly, that too would have
held up as an example of a secret hidden agenda; Fourthly,
the circle phenomena pre-dated the sale by at least 7 years.
Recent contributions to this thread, including Bert's
discussion of beam propogation and GS satellites, and the
fact that the circle phenomena clearly predates Shuttle
missions, suggests to me that a more active exploration of
alternative delivery platforms might be warranted. Also,
for this theory to gain adherents it has to better address
the "seasonality" of the phenomena. It doesn't seem to me
that we can dismiss this feature with a casual observation
that other circles are showing up around the globe. I have
been able to find precious little in the way of credible
investigatory reports of non-UK circles. If you have any
info on this aspect, I'd love to see it.
-Erik-
#: 93159 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 05:40:34
Sb: #93015-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X)
Michael,
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I
know there is alot of research going on that I do not know
anything about. I agree with you that there is much
research going in the fields related to SDI.
On obvious example is the adaptive optics that are just
becoming available to the professional astronomers from a
declassification last year. I am sure there is much more in
other fields, such as particle beam generation and
collimation, laser and maser beam generation, etc.
What I was trying to point out that there are certain
physical laws that, as far as I can tell, cannot be avoided
with the wave of a "new secret technology which you do not
know anything about" wand. One of these is spreading of any
beam, even if absolutely collimated when it leaves its
source. Another is the difficulty of precisely pointing
that beam over a 23,000 mile distance.
My only argument was that this stuff, if it is being
done, is much more likely to be coming from a low-earth
orbit sattelite rather than a geosynchronus orbit sattelite.
Of course, if I happen to be right, is why is this sattelite
being fired at England and not the U.S.
-Bert
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93165 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 09:36:03
Sb: #93159-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To: Bert/Janet Stevens 73357,1572
I can think of several reasons why England and not the U.S.
1) If such crop circles appeared in western Nebraska and
southern Idaho, people would look down, look up, look around
and say "Oh. Government testing." In England, people leap
up and down, and shriek: "Druids. Ley lines. UFOs. The
Old Ones. Jovial Eccentrics." The government(s) don't have
to deny anything, and all their stories are made up for
them.
2) England is mapped better than the U.S. Precision is
easier to calibrate there. Hurstmonceaux, which was the
Greenwich Observatory, until the Thatcher gov't abruptly
decided to vacate the premises, is now officially empty and
in modern chancery -- except for the satellite tracking
instrumentation, which they admit is continuing work.
Hurstmonceaux is in the midst of all this business. The
U.S. doesn't have the equivalent.
3) If the British government knows what is going on -- and
the Army's disinformational creation of a crop circle last
year may not have been purely recreational -- then it is
conceivable that the U.S. provided a limited partnership.
Our guns, their shooting gallery. (If this is true, then
the gov't is doing a pretty good job compared to earlier
experimentation with new technologies -- not a single death
reported yet from crop encircling.)
4) If these are lasers, masers, whatever, in satellites (and
I think I agree, that the orbits cannot be 25,000 miles
out); then they are certainly meant (ultimately) as weapons.
To a European nation, a crop circle drawn in a Wyoming
alfalfa field doesn't have the impact of bisected concentric
circles in a field of rape a few hundred kilometers distant.
(There were a few circles appearing early last summer, in
the nations that had just freed themselves of Communist
yokes.) From the U.S.'s point of view, they would need to
test these techniques in the sorts of places where lurk
whatever enemy we choose to designate such in the future:
Sumatra, Zimbabwe, Romania, Ecuador.
#: 93187 S3/Satellite Observing
31-Oct-91 20:15:11
Sb: #93156-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
Bob, your observations notwithstanding, the attention being
directed to Herstmonceaux (which is, BTW, the correct
spelling) justs seems totally unwarranted. First, it is
*nowhere* near any concentration of crop circle activity (10
Downing Street is closer to Wiltshire than Herstmonceaux!);
Second, the fact that the public is aware of the facility
makes it an unlikely candidate inasmuch as the UK no doubt
has other more strategically located secret research
installations; Third, the real estate transactions
concerning its sale suggest nothing more sinister than
routine government bungling. No doubt, had the sale been
done more cleanly and less publicly, that too would have
held up as an example of a secret hidden agenda; Fourthly,
the circle phenomena pre-dated the sale by at least 7 years.
Recent contributions to this thread, including Bert's
discussion of beam propogation and GS satellites, and the
fact that the circle phenomena clearly predates Shuttle
missions, suggests to me that a more active exploration of
alternative delivery platforms might be warranted. Also,
for this theory to gain adherents it has to better address
the "seasonality" of the phenomena. It doesn't seem to me
that we can dismiss this feature with a casual observation
that other circles are showing up around the globe. I have
been able to find precious little in the way of credible
investigatory reports of non-UK circles. If you have any
info on this aspect, I'd love to see it.
-Erik-
Forum !
#: 93204 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 05:41:01
Sb: #93166-#CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
Michael, I checked my message, and if Eric is reading this,
I'll have you know I spelled Herstmonceaux correctly two
times out of five, I think it was. I'm better with the
Amerindian names which abound here...
I haven't let go of it - certainly not on the basis of its
distance from Wiltshire. I am also less committed to the
high orbit delivery, but not because of the problem of beam
spreading. As I become more informed through the questions
raised here (the whole purpose of the exercise being to
raise the question), I'm more comfortable with the idea that
delivery from lower orbit is possible. I don't know enough
to be locked into anything - just the inherent credibility
that the technology exists to do this, and that alone
guarantees that it will be done. That's basic historical
perspective.
If I concede the possibility of LEO instead of GEO, it is
because a crash course in the current state of the art of
target-fixing during LEO overflight time frames suggests
enough sophistication to satisfy my need for a stationary
platform. It also allows for the use of component deployment
by conventional boosters in the years of the early events of
the late '70s.
Conceding LEO delivery, the distance from Herstmonceaux to
Wiltshire isn't enough to preclude its involvement. In the
case of LEO's, I would expect several data uplinks along the
ground track, including some quite further than
Herstmonceaux.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93205 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 05:41:09
Sb: #93204-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
I didn't want to get into the question of relative distance
(100 miles from Herstmonceaux to Wiltshire) because as long
as I clung to GEO vs. LEO I was on shaky ground, needing an
onsite observation point. Conceding a lower orbiter renders
the distance argument moot, and strengthens the relevance of
its attributed function. And as you say, it might be
irrelevant. What I did want to avoid was getting the main
scenario caught in a closed loop of what can only remain
speculation for now. We need to establish the basic
credibility of the proferred scenario, and refine
methodology from there.
What pleases me very much is that the discussion seems to be
taking on focus. It feels more like the SDI theory is being
tested than refuted. I came into this flexible, and remain
so.
Bob
#: 93206 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 05:41:22
Sb: #93187-#CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Erik Albrektson 70312,3576
Erik, I addressed some of the same questions you raised in
my prior to Michael McDowell. I'm more than willing, as I
expressed to him, to consider other than GEO delivery, which
as I noted, renders the distance of Herstmonceaux to
Wiltshire moot, and strengthens the relevance of its alleged
function. That it post-dates the first phenomena by seven
years might or might not be meaningful. One could speculate
that such a ground facility might not have been needed until
the state of the technology required it - and nobody can
argue that the sophistication of the crop formations hasn't
undergone an increased sophistication since then.
Softening my position to allow for LEO delivery, as in all
objectivity it seems I should. This allows for conventional
booster insertion before the earlier secret Shuttle flights.
It also allows for the insertion of components to be
retrieved and assembled and redeployed by the later Shuttle
missions. That this is a feasible idea is inherent to the
ongoing plan to do that with Hubble.
Unlatching the above doors a bit, it is indeed difficult to
find hard corroboration of crop events outside the UK, with
some notable exceptions, which I videotaped when they were
aired. There were a number of events in the American
midwest - in wheat fields - which included the "trilling"
effect which characterizes some of the English events. An
interview with one very bewildered Iowa farmer was
especially interesting. The same program showed footage of
similar formations in Japan, stating that there have been
quite a few there.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93207 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 05:41:36
Sb: #93206-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
Admittedly, this doesn't address your question about
"seasonality." Because of the way invocation of
Classification is understandably perceived as begging an
issue, I have to presume that tests held elsewhere at
different times of the year haven't taken place because we
haven't heard of them. What I can do, however, is toss back
the argument when it is applied as "why Wiltshire?" Michael
McDowell has eloquently made the argument about the many
cloaks of obfuscation represented by the site.
Here are some things I don't know. I don't know if the same
kind of testing is ongoing or periodic. Having been privy
to knowledge about other research projects, I know from
experience that many projects alternate between phases of
indoors and outdoors operations. A period of R & D is
followed by a test phase, followed by more R & D followed by
more testing.
I do know that testing is only a phase of the R & D of many
high tech projects, and may be periodic. There must be
immense amounts of indoor work that follows the gathering of
test results. More often than not, modification and
implementation lags behind test data. If cycled tests are
what is happening, I don't think resolving the fact of that
is necessary to upholding the original working premise.
As to credible investigatory reports that address
seasonality, I think a search is a good idea. I'm not a
farmer, and don't know what's in season where, but I would
certainly look to the southern hemisphere, from which the
silence has been deafening. Given the density of satellite
tracking facilities we have there, Australia might prove
interesting. Does anybody out there have any Aussie friends
who might respond to an inquiry?
Bob
#: 93238 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 19:19:09
Sb: #93206-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Lawrence Geary/NJ 74017,3065
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
Robert,
I think your CIRCLES hypothesis falls down on a number of
other points regardless of whether a GEO or LEO satellite is
involved. Frankly, it just doesn't make a whole lot of
logical sense.
You postulate that, over a period of more than a decade, one
or more governments launched secret satellites into orbit
with secret SDI laser and/or maser devices as payloads. The
only evidence you cite for this is the appearance of patches
of bent wheat in some English fields.
Firstly, demonstrate to us that when a laser or maser is
fired at a collection of wheat, the result is not heating
and burning of the wheat, but to break the stalks somewhere
above the root or gently bend them down and swirl them in a
circle, with no evidence of heat damage. You have provided
no evidence that lasers or masers can do this. Your
allusions to circular polarization are, to my knowledge,
wrong.
Demonstrate that an after effect of blasting wheat with such
a hypothetical device is to leave the area with an eerie
"trilling" sound (sort of like a cricket or locust?) that
persists over many days/weeks. Please explain the physics of
this after effect.
You postulate that this testing program has been going on
for a long time, yet you show no evidence of the testing
progressing at all. That the earlier patterns were circles
and later ones are circles with lines or musical notes is
not evidence of a progressive testing program. Satellites
are pretty damned expensive to build, launch and monitor,
and I can't see the logic in launching a series of them with
different reticle patterns over *ten years* or more and
still performing the same trivial aiming tests. [continued]
#: 93239 S3/Satellite Observing
01-Nov-91 19:19:25
Sb: #93206-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Lawrence Geary/NJ 74017,3065
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
[continued]
You do not consider that simple aiming and alignment testing
of the sort you suggest can be carried out very simply and
unobtrusively without the need to pockmark the ground. One
need only set up a temporary array of detectors in a grid
pattern, blast it (a low power infrared laser will do fine),
record the data and recover the array. The military loves
high tech stuff, and a detector array is a heck of a lot
more high tech than a wheat field.
The notion that the government(s) is (are) "sending a
message" to some unnamed countries in Europe by pockmarking
English wheat fields is as bizarre as the 1960's notion that
the Chinese were sending political messages to the "west" by
changing the way Mao combed his hair. "If you want to send a
message, try Western Union." In the current context, James
Baker can be quite effective at delivering messages to
governments, friendly and unfriendly alike, and without the
ambiguity inherent in heiroglyphics which many consider
either a natural phenomenon or a series of hoaxes.
Isn't there evidence somewhere of a crop circle in the
1600's? If they happened then, then there is no reason to
invoke secret government projects to explain their existence
today.
Frankly, the idea that these circles are the imprints of
flying saucer landing struts is more plausible than the one
you suggest. In my opinion, we are seeing some combination
of a) wind, b) strange insect behavior, and c) deliberate
hoaxes by farmers out for a quick pound from gullible
tourists.
--Larry
#: 93272 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 01:00:39
Sb: #93207-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
I did a fairly expensive amount of downloading here on
Compuserve a couple of months ago on crop circles,
scientific articles when I could get them, English
periodicals and papers, etc. (I'm in Boston, my files are
in California, but they'll be sent out to me soon.) I
remember that there were a very few crop circles in
Australia, but that they pre-dated the early 80s swarmings
in Wiltshire.
Herstmonceaux Castle was valued at (Pound) One in the
Domesday Book. For a rather heftier sum, the British gov't
purchased it in 1946. I don't know what year its telescopes
went into operation.
#: 93274 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 01:34:03
Sb: #93165-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: tom genereaux 76703,4265
To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X)
RE - Satellite Tracking at Hurstmonceux - The U.S. most
certainly *does* have the equivalent - and better. The
GEODSS system has been operational for over a decade, and is
much better than the Hewitt designed camera at Hurstmonceux.
The Hewitt is the same vintage as the Baker-Nunn camera -
and cannot be retrofitted for electronic imaging. Nor could
the Baker- Nunn's - that's why we put the GEODSS system up.
There are certain problems with your SDI theory that simply
don't hold up - and beam spreading is the least. Consider
the behavior of light through a mask, as you propose - there
will be an interference pattern generated *by the mask*
which prevents beam forming.
Tom G.
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93293 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 08:53:09
Sb: #93274-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To: tom genereaux 76703,4265 (X)
I'm not sure I ever suggested that light was beamed through
a mask -- I would rather think that it was the laser
mechanism itself which followed the track of the mask. Like
a router gliding along an S curve. And if we're talking a
couple of hundred miles... well, check out the recently
declassified work on ground-to-atmosphere laser imaging that
the DoD has been conducting since 1980. They've been doing
much better than anything that is suggested here. The only
reason the work was declassified is that civilian scientists
(Canadian I think) reinvented that particular wheel.
When the Air Force announced that it was going to be taking
care of some of its own launchings, rather than relying on
Canaveral's weather and NASA's problem-du-jour, what sorts
of gadgetry were they intending to place in orbit, do you
know? (I am an expert in a number of things, none of which
have to do with SDI or lenses or the American military; so
someone with knowledge of the postulated arcana is probably
going to get badgered to tell what he may tell.)
#: 93294 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 08:56:10
Sb: #93015-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Dave Woolcock 100010,2076
To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
To check out the Low Earth Orbit theory, presumably we need
to correlate a satellite's movements with crop circle events
on the ground. I know zip about how to do this but:
a) do we have a list of "events" showing: latitude,
longitude, location, date & time, details, weather, xrefs to
photographs etc, whether claimed by hoaxers etc If so is it
available for download anywheres?
b) presumably, unless powered, a satellite's course is
predictable? Is it feasible that such a satellite is
steerable?
c) is there a feasible course that would take a satellite
over the globe's crop circle sites? (i.e. over a Great
Circle extended upwards.. but it could be elliptical etc
though ??)
d) if some sort of beam device is suggested, what kind of
weather would preclude its use?
e) what interference and other side effects are expected if
such a beam is used from LEO height? can they be & were they
detected?
I guess I don't know much about orbits etc, but this makes
you want to know more doesn't it?
#: 93333 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 21:16:30
Sb: #93293-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: tom genereaux 76703,4265
To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247
Still doesn't work. Adaptive optics aren't the answer,
either, at higher power levels. Oh, they help a heck of a
lot, but local currents in the heat channel decollimate the
beam. So does local wind, ground currents, and
microturbulance. Now, adaptive optics have been discussed,
and *demonstrated* with varying degrees of success, for a
long time. The bits that got classified had to do with
specific wave front detection functions and with actual fine
control techniques. SPIE, however, has been publishing more
than hints about how to go about it for years. The
declassified stuff showed how to do adaptive optics
relatively cheaply.
The biggest item in the Air Force payload list are a set of
recon satellites. We are down to *two* photo-recon birds,
and one White Cloud constellation. Lacrosse is the only SAR
orbiting. None of this gives the NRO people warm fuzzy
feelings, since the targets of reconnaisance(sp?) are
changing. The Air Force wants to be able to put up
intelligence satellites that don't need to have huge fuel
burns to change the target area - as is now the case. We
damn near got cooked by the lack of photo intelligence in
the early days of the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait. More
satellites increase the
coverage.
Tom G.
#: 93340 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 22:04:24
Sb: #93238-#CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Lawrence Geary/NJ 74017,3065
Lawrence, I have to presume that you haven't ready the
original thread, CIRCLES.TXT, or seen current pictures of
the more complex crop formations. If I'm wrong, my
apologies. I mention it, because the 17th century formation
you mention is discussed in the first few pages of the
upload. It's known as "The Mowing Devil," a woodcut was
published in the 1680' (?), and appears in the CCCS book
which also contains the photographs of the crop events. The
book also contains the "Mowing Devil" woodcut. Those who do
find logic in an SDI-like hypothesis of some kind, see it as
one of many pre- existent sources which would confuse the
issue and make objective inquiry difficult. More to the
point, the ancient traditions of the area go back thousands
of years, making it very difficult for scientists to go very
public without using a "disreputable" vocabulary that would
banish them to the occult book shelves. Very convenient.
As to what you ask me to demonstrate and explain, if I
could, I would now be in a safehouse with a bunch of
journalists trying to figure how to break the story. It is
still a speculation - but one based on at least a logical
extrapolation of known, existing technology. Rather than
overload the running thread with rehashes, I encourage you
to read CIRCLE.TXT and CIRCIS.TXT. both in ASTRO lib. 17.
It had a lot more downloads over in ISSUES/PARANORMAL, Lib.
10, having only recently graduated to here.
I think you'll find many of your questions already
addressed, specific research cited, and ongoing experiments
quite specifically described.
As to relative perceptions of what is logical, this is a
legitemate aspect of the discussion, and I have to accept
the burden of communication. So...
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93341 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 22:04:35
Sb: #93340-#CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
I can't address your alternate scenario of detectors in a
grid pattern, but who knows? If they get good enough at it,
maybe they will.
I don't remember saying anything about government(s) sending
messages to other governments by pockmarking wheat wheat
fields, but I suppose one could find solace if it was
perceived by irresponsible governments that nuclear
proliferation was already obsolete. I don't really know
what you mean.
Your notion of strange insect behavior is interesting. Any
suggested family? Who taught them to operate surveying
equipment? Farmers out for a quick buck? The damage to the
wheat field at Barbury Castle, where one of the most
spectacular formations recently occured, came to over ten
thousand pounds. I think that would take a lot T-shirts.
The owner of the field, I am told, offered twenty thousand
to anybody who could duplicate it, if they'd pay ten
thousand for the crop damage. No takers, not even Doug and
Dave, who were promptly taken to court by the Farmers' Union
for recovery of damages to the formations they'd claimed.
I think before any of us come to hasty conclusions about
what is or isn't logical, there's an interesting and
understandable phenomenon in which I take great interest,
which I'll call Collective Denial. Sometimes extraordinary
events occur which carry very frightening implications -
"Too Bad to be True," as it were. Many of history's holes
are buried deeply inside them. I think it's relevant here.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93342 S3/Satellite Observing
02-Nov-91 22:04:49
Sb: #93341-CIRCLES.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
I find it especially interesting that this thread never
seemed to take off on the UKFORUM, considering the amount of
private correspondence I'm receiving from various interested
parties, including researches on the site. I wouldn't want
to believe that prototypes of the Twenty First Century's
doomsday machines (I won't say Mannhatan Project) is
operating on my turf. It seems at least discourteous, and
less than forthcoming on the parts of the governments
involved.
I would be the happiest person in the world if the
systematic solicitation of hard information which is the
intent, here, shot my theory to hell. It's not a pretty
notion. With what seems as of now the most "do- able"
explanation out of the way, I would happily move on to more
mundane and/or esoteric lines of inquiry.
Collective Denial can affect the most educated, intelligent,
respectable, honest, and reponsible people in the world.
Without getting sidetracked by conspiracy issues which
become convenient umrellas from the issue at hand,
Collective Denial - the absolute invisibility of logic (and
evidence) from a scenario that is inherently destabilizing
and threatening - I hope you'll relaxedly read the available
material and view the images which your questions suggest
you may not have done yet, then re-examine your sense of
what is logical.
If there was anything logical about all this I suppose this
discussion wouldn't be necessary, but we have to start
somewhere.
BTW, Do I take it that you're in New Jersey? Do you happen
to know if the Army Signal Corps base at Fort Monmouth is
still in operation, and if not, is it occupied by anybody?
- Bob -
#: 93406 S3/Satellite Observing
03-Nov-91 22:41:49
Sb: #93274-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: tom genereaux 76703,4265 (X)
Tom, still appreciating your help on EMP, I think there are
some items in your exchange with Michael McDowell re laser
collimation, stenciling, and other things on which I'd like
to comment. Re Herstmonceaux, speculation about it went
further than simple tracking. Presuming maneuverable,
course correcting satellites, which there are, given the
fact of the location of the Herstmonceaux facility and the
relevance of its alleged capabilities to overflight track
control, plus the fact of secure remote datalink, its
unknown capabilities really make it a sidebar. Relevant
function precludes discard of at least using is at al
"archetypal" element in the process.
I understand that the Signal Corps base at Fort Monmouth is
still alive and well, were I looking for a stateside
situation. Throughout WWII and after, it was and continued
to be a major radar research facility. My father instructed
British radar operators there. I'm in L.A., but lived in
Philadelphia at the time. His other major "commute" was to
the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. If there were a
test site here, I would look for it there, presuming it
hasn't been shut down, which wouldn't mean anything anyway.
Aberdeen once enjoyed an elaborate Security cloak - woe
betide the unauthorized pilot - Airline included - who even
aimed for it. It had something else - an immense Electronic
and Optical Counter Measure (EOCM) [read 'jams anything,
just about anywhere...'] capability. So maybe some tests
were done here. I would accept Aberdeen as a secure site,
for the sake of broadening speculation.
Then there's the question of "beam prevention by
interference pattern generated by a mask."
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93407 S3/Satellite Observing
03-Nov-91 22:42:04
Sb: #93406-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
You seem sophisticated about Security paramaters, so I trust
I won't be perceived as running for an umbrella, but your
counters to McDowell in offering what is or isn't being done
in space presume either that everything has been
declassified or you're accepting at face value what
information you can access. What we're talking about
involves projects I know to be at the top of NSA Security,
because I know of attempts to secure mission profiles under
the Freedom of Information Act, including specific
deployments you mention, and the results were 80% censored.
What an electro-physical mask ('stencil') does to a
collimated beam depends on the properties of that mask - its
material, its electrical activity, its magnetic charge - a
variety of things. There is also the process of optical
collimation by which a laser can be optically compressed, as
would a concave mirror with a focal length equal to the
distance to the range. Considering a source emission of
millimeters, beam compression is feasible. There is ample
example of the use of stenciling in medicine - via physical
masks and superconductive electromagnetism. Collimation is
preserved, and can be enhanced. There is absolutely no hard
information on the results of the high temperature
superconduction experiments and long range laser collimation
experiments conducted in space. That such experiments were
conducted is a matter of record. "Yeah. We messed with
that." "What happened?" "Don't ask." What I'm referring to
goes far beyond the sophistication of adaptive optics that
has yet been conceded. As you mentioned, some publications
are giving hints, but the key is probably not in optical
systems, but in superconductive elecromagnetic ones. We
have lots of access to bench test stuff, but at 0 G, ambient
space conditions, and the efficiency of superconductors
there, nada. zip. nothing.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93408 S3/Satellite Observing
03-Nov-91 22:42:16
Sb: #93407-#CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
In the prior, in mentioning focal pointing to counter
decollimation or beam spreading, it is presumed for the sake
of the discussion that a ground arrival of several hundred
yards width would suggest some success. Even if a point
were actually achieved, an inverted image would appear on
the other side of the focal plane. I'm not ruling out
micro-scanning as an alternative to stenciling, but this
seems less feasible to me. Looking down from above, for the
sake of argument presuming a LEO emitter at 700 km
(Hubble's at 670' and intended for retrieval) it would be
looking down at a base atmosphere that was pretty thin. One
atmosphere of pressure (the weight of a column inch of
atmosphere all the way from Earth to Heaven) is 14.7 lbs/sq.
inch. That's equivalent to the pressure at 33' feet of sea
water. Throw in the ionosphere, and electrical effects
which are far less at night, (as any 20 meter ham knows),
and given that undersea laser experiments have maintained
point to point collimation through several hundred yards of
clear sea water, I don't think atmospheric effects can yet
be invoked as disqualifying.
You also mentioned the huge fuel burns of maneuverable
satellites. As the Hubble profile states for the record,
LEO's are recoverable, repairable, and refuelable. Just
because one went up doesn't mean it was the only one in the
mission profile.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 93409 S3/Satellite Observing
03-Nov-91 22:42:31
Sb: #93408-CIRCLE.txt
Fm: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445
To: Robert Sabaroff 71251,2445 (X)
[Continued]
You're right about the deficiency in global coverage of more
conventional devices. There was considerable unhappiness
about that fact in the military, largely because they were
under the impression that given the large number of
deployment missions, they had less than they'd expected. Not
everyone, it seems, knows just which mission did what, or
what payloads were inserted by conventional boosters, later
to be serviced or even linked by subsequent Shuttle
intercepts.
On the question of local currents in the heat channel
decollimating the beam, or local wind, ground and micro-
turbulences, I know of nothing suggesting anything other
than that these effects do not affect collimated light,
microwaves, X-rays or IR the same way in spaceborne
experiments as in laboratory situations. The simple fact is
that we haven't the foggiest idea about the level of
sophistication acheived in the ten highly classified years
of Star Wars funding, which continues in spite of the public
perception that it's a boondoggle, as described by Reagan.
In Bush's recent SALT treaty speech, he was glib enough to
remind us of all the money SALT would free up for SDI
research. He even said it on CNN so it has to be true. <g>
Can we honestly answer with certitude what they've bought
over the years. I know I can't know, but I know enough to
know what is conceivable. This whole exercise here is about
rattling cages. I've had too much direct experience with
classification procedures to believe that the scenario I'm
holding out, as flexible as possible, I hope, isn't covered
by the simple extrapolation of technology already known to
exist.
Bob
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
Wes,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23