SUBJECT: WGA CIRCLES THREAD EXPANDS TO COMPUSERVE FILE: UFO1208 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") . -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 ) --- 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) 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... ) 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 . 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* 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. 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 * **********************************************