Message posted by Gary on October 28, 2000 at 13:51:00 EST:

I just found the site on the topo map yesterday, so that is the extent of my direct knowledge of the site. The terreserver photo shows a big radome, probably for radar. It may be one of the JSS (Joint Surveillance Site) that the military and FAA run together. The series of structures on the left of the photo are interesting, and is enough to make me add it to the list of thing to check out on my next trip.

The USAF runs (to my knowledge) 3 kinds of communication sites. One is satellite communication and detection, such as the Blue Cube in Sunnyvale and other places. There is the traditional GHFS shortwave freqs (8.992, 11.175, 13.2 etc). Lastly, there is the UHF repeater systems like Bigfoot on the west coast. [The east coast has similar systems.] Now UHF being what it is will require lots of sites, but I doubt there would be a very big presence there. Bigfoot in the bay area is on Mt. Tam in the secure area at the top.

While on the subject of bigfoot, I'll post the freqs. When they are training, it gets pretty intense.

Here are the NORAD Western Air Defense Sector (WADS) 'BIGFOOT' UHF
frequencies:

235.900
239.700
252.000 (primary)
260.800
265.400
271.000
275.900
282.600
288.400
328.000
355.200
364.200 (AICC)
386.000

Although not recently, the frequencies in the list below have also been
active with BIGFOOT traffic:

228.600
228.800
228.900
234.600
234.700
235.800
238.000
238.400
238.500
238.600
238.700
251.000
251.900
254.200
256.600
260.900
261.400
261.900
263.200
267.000
270.200
274.400
275.000
276.400
277.600
279.400
281.600
287.700
287.800
292.700
293.600
293.800
294.400
298.100
298.400
298.500
302.400
306.400
309.400
316.300
320.600
324.000
325.500
327.900
328.000
336.600
338.400
340.600
341.500
341.800
342.300
344.000
346.200
348.200
348.400
351.500
354.200
356.000
359.800
360.400
369.000
374.000
375.100
377.000
386.200
387.800
390.200
392.800
394.200
397.800
398.000

In Reply to: Re: California City Bombing Target posted by zipper on October 28, 2000 at 09:53:19 EST:

Replies: