[AZ-Observing] Re: Sentinel Report
- From: "Stars" <stars@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:28:52 -0700
If you check the sign when entering Sentinel, it says "US Air Force
Property, Unlawful to enter without the express permission of the
Installation Commander. All personal are subject to search." (not the
exact works) but I hope you get the meaning. This is posted in English and
Spanish. This is Air Force property, and being so I would think that the
access to it from the south would mean that the illegal's would have to be
crossing the gunnery range. My understanding is that the Air Force is aware
that we use it for observing, and have never told anyone to leave, which in
all rights they could do. Maybe that is the reason no-one has had a problem
at Sentinel Observing site as stated by Joe Goss this weekend at Sentinel.
Problems on the highway 2 miles north normally does not affect us does it?
Just my 1-cent worth.
Thomas Hilton
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lynn blackburn
Sent: 12/05/2005 9:31 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Sentinel Report
I am all for finding additional sites, but new sites do not guarantee a
better site than Sentinel. Sentinel has a long trouble free history. No
trouble with the 4x4 desert destroyers, people firing guns at night or
helicopters with spotlights. We have had these problem at some of our other
sites.
The gunnery range south of Sentinel is closed to all use except the Air
Force so this limit the traffic near our site. I feel we are more likely to
be confronted by "legals" (the type mentioned above) than an one else.
I'd like to keep Sentinel as a active site especially for the annual SSSG.
Lynn
----- Original Message -----
From: "gene lucas" <geneluca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Sentinel Report
> In years to come, we >may< see the lights from an oil refinery planned
> to be built a little farther towards Yuma out there....
> I agree with Steve and Rosie Dodder, no need to be alarmist, BUT rather,
> we need to stay alert to the vicinity and the changing environment. I
> believe any statements from the AZ Highway Patrol or the Sheriff Dept.
> will likely err on the side of safety, meaning they may urge extra
> caution. Unfortunately, we only see these sites at sporadic intervals.
>
> There was the unfortunate incident last year involving an off-duty
> service person who evidently held some illegals at gun point at the I-8
> rest area just a few miles west of Sentinel.... A case of a well-meaning
> but apparently mis-guided "vigilante" type causing more trouble than was
> justified.
>
> Gene Lucas
> (17250)
>
> beevo1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>>We have neverseen anything dangerous
>>>or even moderately alarming.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>All it takes is once
>>
>>Better safe than sorry.
>>
>>Times are changing and not all of the places are safe anymore, especially
>>if you are un-armed and/or alone
>>
>>Beevo (aka Bill VanOrden)
>>Tempe
>>
>>--
>>See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
>>send personal replies to the author, not the list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
> send personal replies to the author, not the list.
>
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
