While searching for information on possible bunkers in the UK that might have
been the opposite ends of these cables, I came across the following site:

http://www.cial.org.uk/wsm/index.htm

The terminations in Porthcurnow, Cornwall are well documented and have been
covered many times by UK television programmes, but this was the first time I
was aware that cables also terminated at Weston-Super-Mare, Somerset, which is
not really a coastal location (readers of Bill Bryson will appreciate this!) and
is quite a long way up the Bristol Channel.

You'll enjoy the period maps!

regards,


Bob



--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "taskforceleader" <mcfoster@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting 1985 LA Times article on the man who "listens" to the
conversations on the TAT cables.
>
> The article also states that at the other end of the cable "where bunkers
almost identical to the Green Hill" exist.  (France and Spain?).
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-20/news/mn-10458_1_undersea-cable
>
> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "taskforceleader" <mcfoster@> wrote:
> >
> > Great photos!  Any of the switching equipment?  Something makes me think
there were (are) two seperate switches in Cheshire.
> >
> > Also Bamford's book makes reference to the Cheshire/Greenhill L4/TD2
connection as to the source for NSA sniffing out information from the TAT5/6
cables.
> >
> > A few years ago someone on this forum said that at Greenhill there was a
device that routed the "sensitive" calls over the coaxial connection and the
"interesting" call over the microwave.
> >
> > Have never seen reference to the "sniffer" or wether it was located on AT&T
property or somewhere else.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "John" <ramsey@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just posted images of the Cheshire, CT facility here:
> > >
> > > http://coldwar-ct.com/ATT_Cheshire.html
> > >
> > > Including lots of photos taken during construction.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >
>

Revisiting ham,swl & other forums on "sky king" broadcasts I did'nt find
anything definitive on how the HF transmitting sites received each broadcast's
content, other than it originated from Offutt AFB(surely there were alternate
sources)and relayed via HF; with no mention of landlines.

Anyone know if the content was sent by leased TTY and/or voice circuits from the
source to transmitting locations in the 1960's-1970's?; was it simulcast on
several circuits to various locations?, and if voice, was it transmitted out on
HF in real time, or recorded for scheduled broadcasts?





--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "ozob99" <ozob99@...> wrote:
>
> I have posted a couple of Sky King Broadcasts(MP3) from the '70s
> in "files" as Sky King.
>
> More on HF EAM's here:   http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/eam.html
>

AUTODIN.

This sort of application was one of the main reasons that migration to DMS was
delayed for so long & AUTODIN survived at some locations after DMS became
operational.

Remember, Force Direction Messages originated with SAC, EAMs came from JCS.

Emergency Actions personnel at various SAC command centers (including Looking
Glass) could access the Giant Talk network by dialing into them using rotary
dial on the console & today it's some preconfigured buttons & VOIP via computer.

Many of the tx sites had collocated control facilities so the radio op was right
there, and you could tell via in-band control signals & sometimes audio quality
(anyone who has used AUTOVON knows what i mean) whether a transmitter was being
used locally or via a remote user. The system did allow some key users to have
ruthless preemption.

Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave & cable,
replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.

Sent from my iPhone because I can.

On Oct 1, 2010, at 20:12, "OZOB99" <ozob99@...> wrote:

> Revisiting ham,swl & other forums on "sky king" broadcasts I did'nt find
anything definitive on how the HF transmitting sites received each broadcast's
content, other than it originated from Offutt AFB(surely there were alternate
sources)and relayed via HF; with no mention of landlines.
>
> Anyone know if the content was sent by leased TTY and/or voice circuits from
the source to transmitting locations in the 1960's-1970's?; was it simulcast on
several circuits to various locations?, and if voice, was it transmitted out on
HF in real time, or recorded for scheduled broadcasts?
>
> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "ozob99" <ozob99@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have posted a couple of Sky King Broadcasts(MP3) from the '70s
> > in "files" as Sky King.
> >
> > More on HF EAM's here: http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/eam.html
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 10:32:20PM -0600, Tim Tyler wrote:

> Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave &
> cable, replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.

	 I believe that a fair number of leased telco private line
circuits were used for this purpose at various times... I guess others
here would know a lot more detail than I do...



--
   Dave Emery N1PRE/AE, die@...  DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493
"An empty zombie mind with a forlorn barely readable weatherbeaten
'For Rent' sign still vainly flapping outside on the weed encrusted pole - in
celebration of what could have been, but wasn't and is not to be now either."

As I recall, DMS couldn’t (can’t) provide guaranteed delivery with the 15
(?) seconds required of EAMs.



_____________________________________



John K Scoggin, Jr. W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAM3RE/AAA9SL
US Army Military Auxiliary Radio System
Delaware Gateway Station AAB3DE
Special Consultant - Technology

Emergency Operations Officer – DE and Region 3
“Old RADEF Officers never die, they simply decay exponentially…”


Chief Engineer
Mobile Communications Unit 37 (AAT3CAD/W3MCU)

http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/MCU <http://www.armymars.net/>


ARRL Assistant Section Manager – Delaware

Member, AMSAT and Radio Society of Great Britain
Email: aat3bf@...
Telephone: (302) 451-5000



"There is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness ..." - Dave
Barry



   _____

From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Polo Hat
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 12:32 AM
To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King EAM Broadcasts





AUTODIN.

This sort of application was one of the main reasons that migration to DMS
was delayed for so long & AUTODIN survived at some locations after DMS
became operational.

Remember, Force Direction Messages originated with SAC, EAMs came from JCS.

Emergency Actions personnel at various SAC command centers (including
Looking Glass) could access the Giant Talk network by dialing into them
using rotary dial on the console & today it's some preconfigured buttons &
VOIP via computer.

Many of the tx sites had collocated control facilities so the radio op was
right there, and you could tell via in-band control signals & sometimes
audio quality (anyone who has used AUTOVON knows what i mean) whether a
transmitter was being used locally or via a remote user. The system did
allow some key users to have ruthless preemption.

Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave & cable,
replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.

Sent from my iPhone because I can.

On Oct 1, 2010, at 20:12, "OZOB99" <ozob99@...
<mailto:ozob99%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> Revisiting ham,swl & other forums on "sky king" broadcasts I did'nt find
anything definitive on how the HF transmitting sites received each
broadcast's content, other than it originated from Offutt AFB(surely there
were alternate sources)and relayed via HF; with no mention of landlines.
>
> Anyone know if the content was sent by leased TTY and/or voice circuits
from the source to transmitting locations in the 1960's-1970's?; was it
simulcast on several circuits to various locations?, and if voice, was it
transmitted out on HF in real time, or recorded for scheduled broadcasts?
>
> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com> , "ozob99" <ozob99@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have posted a couple of Sky King Broadcasts(MP3) from the '70s
> > in "files" as Sky King.
> >
> > More on HF EAM's here: http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/eam.html
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John, that was never tested, but was an article of faith for DISA.  So most of
the AUTODIN hubs were shut down except for a subset that were renamed DMS
Transition Hubs back in 2003, in a program called EAM Hybrid Solution.

The EAM Long Term Solution is being worked now.


Cheers, Bill

BillHensley@...

-----Original Message-----
From: "John K Scoggin Jr \(W3JKS/AAT3BF\)" <aat3bf@...>
Sender: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:44:27
To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King  EAM Broadcasts

As I recall, DMS couldn’t (can’t) provide guaranteed delivery with the 15
(?) seconds required of EAMs.



_____________________________________



John K Scoggin, Jr. W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAM3RE/AAA9SL
US Army Military Auxiliary Radio System
Delaware Gateway Station AAB3DE
Special Consultant - Technology

Emergency Operations Officer – DE and Region 3
“Old RADEF Officers never die, they simply decay exponentially…”


Chief Engineer
Mobile Communications Unit 37 (AAT3CAD/W3MCU)

http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/MCU <http://www.armymars.net/>


ARRL Assistant Section Manager – Delaware

Member, AMSAT and Radio Society of Great Britain
Email: aat3bf@...
Telephone: (302) 451-5000



"There is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness ..." - Dave
Barry



_____

From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Polo Hat
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 12:32 AM
To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King EAM Broadcasts





AUTODIN.

This sort of application was one of the main reasons that migration to DMS
was delayed for so long & AUTODIN survived at some locations after DMS
became operational.

Remember, Force Direction Messages originated with SAC, EAMs came from JCS.

Emergency Actions personnel at various SAC command centers (including
Looking Glass) could access the Giant Talk network by dialing into them
using rotary dial on the console & today it's some preconfigured buttons &
VOIP via computer.

Many of the tx sites had collocated control facilities so the radio op was
right there, and you could tell via in-band control signals & sometimes
audio quality (anyone who has used AUTOVON knows what i mean) whether a
transmitter was being used locally or via a remote user. The system did
allow some key users to have ruthless preemption.

Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave & cable,
replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.

Sent from my iPhone because I can.

On Oct 1, 2010, at 20:12, "OZOB99" <ozob99@...
<mailto:ozob99%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> Revisiting ham,swl & other forums on "sky king" broadcasts I did'nt find
anything definitive on how the HF transmitting sites received each
broadcast's content, other than it originated from Offutt AFB(surely there
were alternate sources)and relayed via HF; with no mention of landlines.
>
> Anyone know if the content was sent by leased TTY and/or voice circuits
from the source to transmitting locations in the 1960's-1970's?; was it
simulcast on several circuits to various locations?, and if voice, was it
transmitted out on HF in real time, or recorded for scheduled broadcasts?
>
> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com> , "ozob99" <ozob99@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have posted a couple of Sky King Broadcasts(MP3) from the '70s
> > in "files" as Sky King.
> >
> > More on HF EAM's here: http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/eam.html
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All:

	 On the Dewline the message came in on the Greenpine Survival Low
frequency Communication System to the Main Sites, the Military then passed
it on to the Aux sites at which time it was passed out over the UHF radios

Robin


-----Original Message-----
From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill Hensley
Sent: October-02-10 06:12
To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King EAM Broadcasts

John, that was never tested, but was an article of faith for DISA.  So most
of the AUTODIN hubs were shut down except for a subset that were renamed DMS
Transition Hubs back in 2003, in a program called EAM Hybrid Solution.



The EAM Long Term Solution is being worked now.





Cheers, Bill



BillHensley@...



-----Original Message-----

From: "John K Scoggin Jr \(W3JKS/AAT3BF\)" <aat3bf@...>

Sender: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com

Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:44:27

To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>

Reply-To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King  EAM Broadcasts



As I recall, DMS couldn't (can't) provide guaranteed delivery with the 15

(?) seconds required of EAMs.







_____________________________________







John K Scoggin, Jr. W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAM3RE/AAA9SL

US Army Military Auxiliary Radio System

Delaware Gateway Station AAB3DE

Special Consultant - Technology



Emergency Operations Officer - DE and Region 3

"Old RADEF Officers never die, they simply decay exponentially."





Chief Engineer

Mobile Communications Unit 37 (AAT3CAD/W3MCU)



http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/MCU <http://www.armymars.net/>





ARRL Assistant Section Manager - Delaware



Member, AMSAT and Radio Society of Great Britain

Email: aat3bf@...

Telephone: (302) 451-5000







"There is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness ..." - Dave

Barry







_____



From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On

Behalf Of Polo Hat

Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 12:32 AM

To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King EAM Broadcasts











AUTODIN.



This sort of application was one of the main reasons that migration to DMS

was delayed for so long & AUTODIN survived at some locations after DMS

became operational.



Remember, Force Direction Messages originated with SAC, EAMs came from JCS.



Emergency Actions personnel at various SAC command centers (including

Looking Glass) could access the Giant Talk network by dialing into them

using rotary dial on the console & today it's some preconfigured buttons &

VOIP via computer.



Many of the tx sites had collocated control facilities so the radio op was

right there, and you could tell via in-band control signals & sometimes

audio quality (anyone who has used AUTOVON knows what i mean) whether a

transmitter was being used locally or via a remote user. The system did

allow some key users to have ruthless preemption.



Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave & cable,

replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.



Sent from my iPhone because I can.



On Oct 1, 2010, at 20:12, "OZOB99" <ozob99@...

<mailto:ozob99%40yahoo.com> > wrote:



> Revisiting ham,swl & other forums on "sky king" broadcasts I did'nt find

anything definitive on how the HF transmitting sites received each

broadcast's content, other than it originated from Offutt AFB(surely there

were alternate sources)and relayed via HF; with no mention of landlines.

>

> Anyone know if the content was sent by leased TTY and/or voice circuits

from the source to transmitting locations in the 1960's-1970's?; was it

simulcast on several circuits to various locations?, and if voice, was it

transmitted out on HF in real time, or recorded for scheduled broadcasts?

>

> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com> , "ozob99" <ozob99@...> wrote:

> >

> > I have posted a couple of Sky King Broadcasts(MP3) from the '70s

> > in "files" as Sky King.

> >

> > More on HF EAM's here: http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/eam.html

> >

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Polo Hat <polohat@...> wrote:
>
> AUTODIN.
>
> This sort of application was one of the main reasons that migration to DMS was
delayed for so long & AUTODIN survived at some locations after DMS became
operational.
>
> Remember, Force Direction Messages originated with SAC, EAMs came from JCS.
>
> Emergency Actions personnel at various SAC command centers (including Looking
Glass) could access the Giant Talk network by dialing into them using rotary
dial on the console & today it's some preconfigured buttons & VOIP via computer.
>
> Many of the tx sites had collocated control facilities so the radio op was
right there, and you could tell via in-band control signals & sometimes audio
quality (anyone who has used AUTOVON knows what i mean) whether a transmitter
was being used locally or via a remote user. The system did allow some key users
to have ruthless preemption.
>
> Links between the host base & HF tx/control annex used microwave & cable,
replaced circa late 1980s - mid 1990s by fiber.
>

OK so the content was sent as record comms,via DOD and/or commercial landlines;
and then read as voice transmissions from the various TX sites.

Any significance to some TX locations identifying with real names(e.g.
Mcclellan, Andrews) vs: call signs(e.g. retail, outweigh,etc)?

On 10/2/2010 2:21 PM, OZOB99 wrote:
>
> OK so the content was sent as record comms,via DOD and/or commercial
> landlines; and then read as voice transmissions from the various TX sites.
>
     Or access was seized remotely via SAC Command Center, SAC Numbered
Air Force Combat Operations Centers, PACCS assets, etc.  "TECH CONTROL"
used to be heard pretty regularly seizing one or more Giant Talk tx
sites & doing test counts.  I assume that was the HQ SAC Underground
Command Center Technical
Control facility.   Later on, the same thing would be done by someone
using a tactical callsign.    Using a static identifier, such as WAR-46,
NIGHTWATCH 01, DROPKICK, etc. can cause OPSEC problems because if/when
the stations start using classified tactical callsigns/callwords
on the same nets, it's usually pretty easy for an astute, longtime
monitor to realize who they are based on traffic analysis,
especially if they're a shot-caller (pun intended) like Nightwatch or
WAR-46.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb304/

> Any significance to some TX locations identifying with real names(e.g.
> McClellan, Andrews) vs: call signs(e.g. retail, outweigh,etc)?
>

    In the era we've been talking about, SAC had their own HF/SSB C2
network which first used static callwords like DROP KICK (SAC
Command Center), STEP MOTHER, GRAYSON etc. al with aircraft & ICBM
launch control facilities using tactical callsigns at the
squadron level, then evolved into mostly using tactical callwords,
keeping some of the unclassified static ones around for special events like
DROP KICK making a demonstration phone patch to LOOKING GLASS during an
unclas tour of the SAC Underground.

   The general purpose USAF HF flight-following & ATC relay network,
known as Airways & Air Control Service ("Airways"),
USAF Global Communications ("GLOBECOM"), Global Command & Control System
(prior to the data network of that same name),
Global High Frequency Communications System, et al. was for comms of a
more routine nature & thus for day to day situations
just ID'ed with the name of their host base, even though that same site
would be using a tactical callword on another
HF network.   It also made it easier for someone like a MAC C-141 pilot
to know who he was communicating with (Mr. Mac Dill,
Ms. Ann Drews, Mr. Al Brook) or who to try to call, based on his
location rather than have to deal with classified AFKAI
callword/callsign stuff,
especially when that MAC aircraft was just ID'ing as MAC plus his
tailcode anyway. As you probably know, there are/were some
static collective callsigns used just for brevity purposes, like
MAINSAIL, SKYKING (all SAC SIOP forces) & SKYBIRD (any/all SAC
ground stations), & MAC/AMC does have some too, like HILDA, DENALI, etc.

    Today, Air Mobility Command & contract
aircraft usually ID as REACH ##### but only a fool would assume that
every REACH ##### heard is simply an AMC-related
'trash-hauler.'   I understand that when General Steve Douglas is up
tooling around in his hypersonic TR-3 Black Manta
blowing 'donuts on a rope' contrails, he brilliantly uses a REACH #####
callsign in order to hide in plain sight.

    Other technology, the 'end' of the Cold War, & cost-cutting efforts
caused some service & command-operated HF networks to be either phased out
(Tactical Air Command's 'Fireside' net, PACAF's Commando Escort, USN's
HICOM etc.) or were conglomerated into a DOD-wide
multi-purpose worldwide HF C2 ALE-capable network now known as the HF
Global Communications System that does still maintain some
special activities such as the remains of Mystic Star & of course
sending out JCS EAMs & Global Strike Command FDMs.  The "McClellan"
AFB HF transmitter annex that was one of the first GLOBECOM sites
established in the 1950s shut down almost a decade ago, with a
new replacement site located not too far away at the US Navy's
contractor-operated HF tx site in Dixon (hence they usually ID as
"West Coast" instead of McClellan, which was closed by 2001).  The
original receiver annex is intact & still used -- an annex of Beale
AFB & remotely operated by Andrews & Grand Forks NOCs.




Tim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:27 AM, coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>  The system did
> allow some key users to have ruthless preemption.


hahaha - great term - ruthless preemption - I should be able to
get that into a document or presentation somewhere along the
line ;-)  I will tip the hat to you...

doug

Thanks for the elaboration. good stuff to know.




--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Tim <polohat@...> wrote:
>
>   On 10/2/2010 2:21 PM, OZOB99 wrote:
> >
> > OK so the content was sent as record comms,via DOD and/or commercial
> > landlines; and then read as voice transmissions from the various TX sites.
> >
>     Or access was seized remotely via SAC Command Center, SAC Numbered
> Air Force Combat Operations Centers, PACCS assets, etc.  "TECH CONTROL"
> used to be heard pretty regularly seizing one or more Giant Talk tx
> sites & doing test counts.  I assume that was the HQ SAC Underground
> Command Center Technical
> Control facility.   Later on, the same thing would be done by someone
> using a tactical callsign.    Using a static identifier, such as WAR-46,
> NIGHTWATCH 01, DROPKICK, etc. can cause OPSEC problems because if/when
> the stations start using classified tactical callsigns/callwords
> on the same nets, it's usually pretty easy for an astute, longtime
> monitor to realize who they are based on traffic analysis,
> especially if they're a shot-caller (pun intended) like Nightwatch or
> WAR-46.
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb304/
>
> > Any significance to some TX locations identifying with real names(e.g.
> > McClellan, Andrews) vs: call signs(e.g. retail, outweigh,etc)?
> >
>
>    In the era we've been talking about, SAC had their own HF/SSB C2
> network which first used static callwords like DROP KICK (SAC
> Command Center), STEP MOTHER, GRAYSON etc. al with aircraft & ICBM
> launch control facilities using tactical callsigns at the
> squadron level, then evolved into mostly using tactical callwords,
> keeping some of the unclassified static ones around for special events like
> DROP KICK making a demonstration phone patch to LOOKING GLASS during an
> unclas tour of the SAC Underground.
>
>   The general purpose USAF HF flight-following & ATC relay network,
> known as Airways & Air Control Service ("Airways"),
> USAF Global Communications ("GLOBECOM"), Global Command & Control System
> (prior to the data network of that same name),
> Global High Frequency Communications System, et al. was for comms of a
> more routine nature & thus for day to day situations
> just ID'ed with the name of their host base, even though that same site
> would be using a tactical callword on another
> HF network.   It also made it easier for someone like a MAC C-141 pilot
> to know who he was communicating with (Mr. Mac Dill,
> Ms. Ann Drews, Mr. Al Brook) or who to try to call, based on his
> location rather than have to deal with classified AFKAI
> callword/callsign stuff,
> especially when that MAC aircraft was just ID'ing as MAC plus his
> tailcode anyway. As you probably know, there are/were some
> static collective callsigns used just for brevity purposes, like
> MAINSAIL, SKYKING (all SAC SIOP forces) & SKYBIRD (any/all SAC
> ground stations), & MAC/AMC does have some too, like HILDA, DENALI, etc.
>
>    Today, Air Mobility Command & contract
> aircraft usually ID as REACH ##### but only a fool would assume that
> every REACH ##### heard is simply an AMC-related
> 'trash-hauler.'   I understand that when General Steve Douglas is up
> tooling around in his hypersonic TR-3 Black Manta
> blowing 'donuts on a rope' contrails, he brilliantly uses a REACH #####
> callsign in order to hide in plain sight.
>
>    Other technology, the 'end' of the Cold War, & cost-cutting efforts
> caused some service & command-operated HF networks to be either phased out
> (Tactical Air Command's 'Fireside' net, PACAF's Commando Escort, USN's
> HICOM etc.) or were conglomerated into a DOD-wide
> multi-purpose worldwide HF C2 ALE-capable network now known as the HF
> Global Communications System that does still maintain some
> special activities such as the remains of Mystic Star & of course
> sending out JCS EAMs & Global Strike Command FDMs.  The "McClellan"
> AFB HF transmitter annex that was one of the first GLOBECOM sites
> established in the 1950s shut down almost a decade ago, with a
> new replacement site located not too far away at the US Navy's
> contractor-operated HF tx site in Dixon (hence they usually ID as
> "West Coast" instead of McClellan, which was closed by 2001).  The
> original receiver annex is intact & still used -- an annex of Beale
> AFB & remotely operated by Andrews & Grand Forks NOCs.
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Like the I Phone blurb:  "they do it because they can!"

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Doug Humphrey <doug@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:27 AM, coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >  The system did
> > allow some key users to have ruthless preemption.
>
>
> hahaha - great term - ruthless preemption - I should be able to
> get that into a document or presentation somewhere along the
> line ;-)  I will tip the hat to you...
>
> doug
>

> Thanks for the elaboration. good stuff to know.

Yes, thanks POLO HAT.  One clarification:

>> Today, Air Mobility Command & contract aircraft usually ID
>> as REACH ##### ...

A few months ago, they changed the contract aircraft to use CAMBER
[ICAO: CMB] instead; there should be no more contract aircraft using
REACH.

San Francisco

Still in use as of last weekend...heard a couple calling in radio checks.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes@...>
Sender: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:57:11
To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King  EAM Broadcasts

> Thanks for the elaboration. good stuff to know.

Yes, thanks POLO HAT.  One clarification:

>> Today, Air Mobility Command & contract aircraft usually ID
>> as REACH ##### ...

A few months ago, they changed the contract aircraft to use CAMBER
[ICAO: CMB] instead; there should be no more contract aircraft using
REACH.

San Francisco



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sometimes Uncle Sam’s security leaves them high and dry – on 9/11/01, I was
acting as net control of one of the NCS SHARES nets when WAR46 came on
frequency and asked me “how to contact the FBI on HF”!  Not knowing if they
were who they said they were, I was a little hesitant to tell them on the
air…



Finally, I called Site R’s HF operator on the landline (were they surprised
when I called!) and told them on the phone.  Fortunately, I have a GETS card
because the LD network was under some serious stress at that point and
“ruthless preemption” was your friend.  We had some interesting callers on
HF for the next few hours.



john



_____________________________________



John K Scoggin, Jr. W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAM3RE/AAA9SL
US Army Military Auxiliary Radio System
Delaware Gateway Station AAB3DE
Special Consultant - Technology

Emergency Operations Officer – DE and Region 3
“Old RADEF Officers never die, they simply decay exponentially…”


Chief Engineer
Mobile Communications Unit 37 (AAT3CAD/W3MCU)

http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/MCU <http://www.armymars.net/>


ARRL Assistant Section Manager – Delaware

Member, AMSAT and Radio Society of Great Britain
Email: aat3bf@...
Telephone: (302) 451-5000



"There is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness ..." - Dave
Barry



   _____

From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of OZOB99
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 11:23 AM
To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coldwarcomms] Re: Sky King EAM Broadcasts





Thanks for the elaboration. good stuff to know.

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>
, Tim <polohat@...> wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2010 2:21 PM, OZOB99 wrote:
> >
> > OK so the content was sent as record comms,via DOD and/or commercial
> > landlines; and then read as voice transmissions from the various TX
sites.
> >
> Or access was seized remotely via SAC Command Center, SAC Numbered
> Air Force Combat Operations Centers, PACCS assets, etc. "TECH CONTROL"
> used to be heard pretty regularly seizing one or more Giant Talk tx
> sites & doing test counts. I assume that was the HQ SAC Underground
> Command Center Technical
> Control facility. Later on, the same thing would be done by someone
> using a tactical callsign. Using a static identifier, such as WAR-46,
> NIGHTWATCH 01, DROPKICK, etc. can cause OPSEC problems because if/when
> the stations start using classified tactical callsigns/callwords
> on the same nets, it's usually pretty easy for an astute, longtime
> monitor to realize who they are based on traffic analysis,
> especially if they're a shot-caller (pun intended) like Nightwatch or
> WAR-46.
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb304/
>
> > Any significance to some TX locations identifying with real names(e.g.
> > McClellan, Andrews) vs: call signs(e.g. retail, outweigh,etc)?
> >
>
> In the era we've been talking about, SAC had their own HF/SSB C2
> network which first used static callwords like DROP KICK (SAC
> Command Center), STEP MOTHER, GRAYSON etc. al with aircraft & ICBM
> launch control facilities using tactical callsigns at the
> squadron level, then evolved into mostly using tactical callwords,
> keeping some of the unclassified static ones around for special events
like
> DROP KICK making a demonstration phone patch to LOOKING GLASS during an
> unclas tour of the SAC Underground.
>
> The general purpose USAF HF flight-following & ATC relay network,
> known as Airways & Air Control Service ("Airways"),
> USAF Global Communications ("GLOBECOM"), Global Command & Control System
> (prior to the data network of that same name),
> Global High Frequency Communications System, et al. was for comms of a
> more routine nature & thus for day to day situations
> just ID'ed with the name of their host base, even though that same site
> would be using a tactical callword on another
> HF network. It also made it easier for someone like a MAC C-141 pilot
> to know who he was communicating with (Mr. Mac Dill,
> Ms. Ann Drews, Mr. Al Brook) or who to try to call, based on his
> location rather than have to deal with classified AFKAI
> callword/callsign stuff,
> especially when that MAC aircraft was just ID'ing as MAC plus his
> tailcode anyway. As you probably know, there are/were some
> static collective callsigns used just for brevity purposes, like
> MAINSAIL, SKYKING (all SAC SIOP forces) & SKYBIRD (any/all SAC
> ground stations), & MAC/AMC does have some too, like HILDA, DENALI, etc.
>
> Today, Air Mobility Command & contract
> aircraft usually ID as REACH ##### but only a fool would assume that
> every REACH ##### heard is simply an AMC-related
> 'trash-hauler.' I understand that when General Steve Douglas is up
> tooling around in his hypersonic TR-3 Black Manta
> blowing 'donuts on a rope' contrails, he brilliantly uses a REACH #####
> callsign in order to hide in plain sight.
>
> Other technology, the 'end' of the Cold War, & cost-cutting efforts
> caused some service & command-operated HF networks to be either phased out
> (Tactical Air Command's 'Fireside' net, PACAF's Commando Escort, USN's
> HICOM etc.) or were conglomerated into a DOD-wide
> multi-purpose worldwide HF C2 ALE-capable network now known as the HF
> Global Communications System that does still maintain some
> special activities such as the remains of Mystic Star & of course
> sending out JCS EAMs & Global Strike Command FDMs. The "McClellan"
> AFB HF transmitter annex that was one of the first GLOBECOM sites
> established in the 1950s shut down almost a decade ago, with a
> new replacement site located not too far away at the US Navy's
> contractor-operated HF tx site in Dixon (hence they usually ID as
> "West Coast" instead of McClellan, which was closed by 2001). The
> original receiver annex is intact & still used -- an annex of Beale
> AFB & remotely operated by Andrews & Grand Forks NOCs.
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.lazygranch.com/edw_rf_truck.htm

the mfg's web page:

http://www.emitechnologies.com/smic.html

BTW the guy at lazygranch.com has some interesting pics of Area 51 comms,sensors
& radar(no alien/conspiracy claims)

http://www.lazygranch.com/a51sel.htm

http://www.lazygranch.com/bg.htm

I'm curious to hear what people's theories are about the recent activity on the
HF Russian "buzzer' transmissions.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast\
-changes

Personally, I'm thinking it's less about cold war/spy stuff than originally
assumed. But who knows.



Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com/
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist

The theory that it's used to study the ionosphere seems about the most sane
to me, at least given that there's been very few interruptions to it being a
buzzer up until recently.

There's this article from 2008:

http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml

If you go to the section on Doppler Radio Sounding of the Ionosphere it
talks about using a carrier wave frequency of 4.625 MHz which is what UVB-76
broadcasts on.  I'm not an ionospheric researcher so I could be way off but
it seems more reasonable than some of the alternate theories (dead man
switch for instance).

This doesn't of course explain why it gets used as a numbers station from
time to time.

Maybe it's a real life Russian version of Lost.

sam

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM, dave_d333 <dave@...> wrote:

> I'm curious to hear what people's theories are about the recent activity on
> the HF Russian "buzzer' transmissions.
>
>
>
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast\
-changes
>
> Personally, I'm thinking it's less about cold war/spy stuff than originally
> assumed. But who knows.
>
>
>
> Dave
> http://www.dpdproductions.com/
> Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Check out UDXF on yahoo groups, EAMs, Sky King, the buzzer, et cetera
discussed weekly, as they are monitored 24/7 by hundreds.

Kurt

I think that's a good possibility... Although, one would have to ask why they
haven't just come out and said that a long time ago. And also... Typically
scientists are pretty forthcoming in their experiments and sharing the data with
other scientists, no matter where they're from. I've not looked, but I'm
assuming there has been no evidence showing they've done that? It could be that
they started out as a scientific experiment, then when the mystery started up,
the government decided to use it as a propaganda tool.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com/
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist



--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Sam Etler <etler@...> wrote:
>
> The theory that it's used to study the ionosphere seems about the most sane
> to me, at least given that there's been very few interruptions to it being a
> buzzer up until recently.
>
> There's this article from 2008:
>
> http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml
>
> If you go to the section on Doppler Radio Sounding of the Ionosphere it
> talks about using a carrier wave frequency of 4.625 MHz which is what UVB-76
> broadcasts on.  I'm not an ionospheric researcher so I could be way off but
> it seems more reasonable than some of the alternate theories (dead man
> switch for instance).
>
> This doesn't of course explain why it gets used as a numbers station from
> time to time.
>
> Maybe it's a real life Russian version of Lost.
>
> sam
>
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM, dave_d333 <dave@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious to hear what people's theories are about the recent activity on
> > the HF Russian "buzzer' transmissions.
> >
> >
> >
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast\
-changes
> >
> > Personally, I'm thinking it's less about cold war/spy stuff than originally
> > assumed. But who knows.

Any possibility it could be a means to "signal
condition" the ionosphere for better propagation on that freq?

Mike



At 10:21 PM 10/3/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>I think that's a good possibility... Although,
>one would have to ask why they haven't just come
>out and said that a long time ago. And also...
>Typically scientists are pretty forthcoming in
>their experiments and sharing the data with
>other scientists, no matter where they're from.
>I've not looked, but I'm assuming there has been
>no evidence showing they've done that? It could
>be that they started out as a scientific
>experiment, then when the mystery started up,
>the government decided to use it as a propaganda tool.
>
>Dave
><http://www.dpdproductions.com/>http://www.dpdproductions.com/
>Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
>
>--- In
><mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com,
>Sam Etler <etler@...> wrote:
> >
> > The theory that it's used to study the ionosphere seems about the most sane
> > to me, at least given that there's been very
> few interruptions to it being a
> > buzzer up until recently.
> >
> > There's this article from 2008:
> >
> >
>
<http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml>http://elpub.wdcb.r\
u/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml
> >
> > If you go to the section on Doppler Radio Sounding of the Ionosphere it
> > talks about using a carrier wave frequency of
> 4.625 MHz which is what UVB-76
> > broadcasts on. I'm not an ionospheric researcher so I could be way off but
> > it seems more reasonable than some of the alternate theories (dead man
> > switch for instance).
> >
> > This doesn't of course explain why it gets used as a numbers station from
> > time to time.
> >
> > Maybe it's a real life Russian version of Lost.
> >
> > sam
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM, dave_d333 <dave@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious to hear what people's theories
> are about the recent activity on
> > > the HF Russian "buzzer' transmissions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
<http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcas\
t-changes>http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station\
-broadcast-changes
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm thinking it's less about
> cold war/spy stuff than originally
> > > assumed. But who knows.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike Cowen      Practice random acts of kindness
                                and selfless acts of beauty.
   mcowen@...            -Anonymous



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So I set pushpins on the bird's eye map, and sent the link to a friend.

He uses a different rotation/zoom, but the pins do NOT track; they stay in
place while the map changes.

In short, they are worthless.

Grrr...

Use Google Earth and send your .kmz file.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: David <wb8foz@...>
Sender: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:32:15
To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coldwarcomms] ^%*&*%% Bing

So I set pushpins on the bird's eye map, and sent the link to a friend.

He uses a different rotation/zoom, but the pins do NOT track; they stay in
place while the map changes.

In short, they are worthless.

Grrr...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What exactly is this lovely and costly piece of equipment used for at
Edwards or elsewhere?

As for the Lazygranch site, I love that guy's work: unclouded by space alien
conspiracy nonsense and containing some very interesting material.


Mike



2010/10/3 OZOB99 <ozob99@...>

>
>
> http://www.lazygranch.com/edw_rf_truck.htm
>
> the mfg's web page:
>
> http://www.emitechnologies.com/smic.html
>
> BTW the guy at lazygranch.com has some interesting pics of Area 51
> comms,sensors & radar(no alien/conspiracy claims)
>
> http://www.lazygranch.com/a51sel.htm
>
> http://www.lazygranch.com/bg.htm
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/4/10 6:37 PM, david.dauphinee@... wrote:

> Use Google Earth and send your .kmz file.

Bing Bong has some great low-angle airbreather[1] coverage; something
Google (and everyone else listed in Geohack...) lacks.




1] In this group, I should say Tango {vs. Keyhole}...

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Mike Cowen <mcowen@...> wrote:
>
> Any possibility it could be a means to "signal
> condition" the ionosphere for better propagation on that freq?
>
> Mike


I have no idea... The really weird thing is that it does appear to be an actual
mic'd sound inside a room being transmitted... Thus, the odd voices when people
go into the room.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com/
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist

I've long found the "buzzer" station interesting and while I don't know its
purpose, I can say the following:

Friends who are astronomers and atmospheric scientists have said it probably
isn't doing research on the ionosphere because there would be precious
little reason to keep such work secret and every reason to publish and share
their findings. It's been broadcasting the same damn signal too long to have
been doing anything research-wise, too.

About the mic: people seem to assume that because voices are at times heard,
there is always a live mic and the buzzing sound is played into that mic. I
find this odd. I think it's far more likely that the buzzing sound is played
via a tape loop over a line and at times a live mic has accidently been
turned on (easy enough to do on a mixing board) and whatever sounds are in
the control room or studio are instead transmitted. I'm a bedroom electronic
musician, and I can tell you I've often switched on a mic or other sound
source instead of what I planned to when recording . . . the vocal
broadcasts from the buzzer have been so very infrequent that they do seem
like accidents to me.

My best guess is this station remains on the air to transmit some emergency
broadcast if required and the buzzing pattern is to let listeners know it's
still in service.


Mike






2010/10/5 dave_d333 <dave@...>

>
>
> --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com <coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike
> Cowen <mcowen@...> wrote:
> >
> > Any possibility it could be a means to "signal
> > condition" the ionosphere for better propagation on that freq?
> >
> > Mike
>
> I have no idea... The really weird thing is that it does appear to be an
> actual mic'd sound inside a room being transmitted... Thus, the odd voices
> when people go into the room.
>
>
> Dave
> http://www.dpdproductions.com/
> Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That makes sense... I've not heard recordings of all the times when there was
something other than the buzzer. So I've not heard exactly what it sounds like
when other sounds mix with it. I have a lot of recording experience as well...
The actual buzzer may very well be direct. But just by listening, my gut tells
me there's a fair chance it is actually mic'd. I can't put into words why, but
it just has an ambiance to it. Or that could just totally be a fluke.

At any rate... If there wasn't something secret involved somehow, I would think
somebody would have blabbed about it by now. Obviously multiple generations of
people have been involved by this time. So I don't know. I think at the very
least, they are taking advantage of the mystery for psych-ops. It almost kind of
ruins the mystery to see where it comes from though.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com/
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Mike Walker <thecloudboy@...> wrote:
>
> I've long found the "buzzer" station interesting and while I don't know its
> purpose, I can say the following:
>
> Friends who are astronomers and atmospheric scientists have said it probably
> isn't doing research on the ionosphere because there would be precious
> little reason to keep such work secret and every reason to publish and share
> their findings. It's been broadcasting the same damn signal too long to have
> been doing anything research-wise, too.
>
> About the mic: people seem to assume that because voices are at times heard,
> there is always a live mic and the buzzing sound is played into that mic. I
> find this odd. I think it's far more likely that the buzzing sound is played
> via a tape loop over a line and at times a live mic has accidently been
> turned on (easy enough to do on a mixing board) and whatever sounds are in
> the control room or studio are instead transmitted. I'm a bedroom electronic
> musician, and I can tell you I've often switched on a mic or other sound
> source instead of what I planned to when recording . . . the vocal
> broadcasts from the buzzer have been so very infrequent that they do seem
> like accidents to me.
>
> My best guess is this station remains on the air to transmit some emergency
> broadcast if required and the buzzing pattern is to let listeners know it's
> still in service.

I just posted several dozen additional photos of the underground Cheshire, CT
ATT facility here:

http://coldwar-ct.com/ATT_Cheshire.html

John,

So what does the facility do today if anything?

I noticed the lack of any areas with telephone equipment.

-Ken

--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "John" <ramsey@...> wrote:
>
> I just posted several dozen additional photos of the underground Cheshire, CT
ATT facility here:
>
> http://coldwar-ct.com/ATT_Cheshire.html
>