Talk:Area 51
|
|
| Contents |
rewrite
In rewriting, I removed the (dead) link to Area 19. I did try to write a page for that topic, but I can't find anything that isn't pure tinfoil-hat speculation stuff (unlike 51, for which we have plenty of encyclopedic material).
- Finlay McWalter 12:50, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think I'm done updating the page. It's difficult to be encyclopedic about something that undoubtedly exists but the details of which are so acutely secret. There's a great shortage of reliable source material. The main, and most reliable source, is Ben Rich's book "Skunkworks", from which most of the material on past operations at Groom is derived. Other details are filled in from the website of the Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org). Both Rich and FAS make very modest claims, they're consistent with each other, and both have a reliable pedegree. To assert that they're both wrong on a significant matter (particularly, that they're lying) would entail, I think, believing in another (rather elaborate) consipiracy theory. It's for this reason that I've taken the liberty of asserting the historical parts as fact, rather than endlessly repeating "allegedly" and "apparently" and "some assert", etc. If there are errors and ommisions (there surely are) I think they're unlikely to be significant (if, for example, F117 was immediately deployed at Nellis rather than Tonopah, the page is in error, but I think not to a material degree). I've tried to reserve those terms for the supposed projects following F117, and particularly for the tinfoil-hat ufo-deathray-UNconspiracy stuff at the end.
I'd be willing to accept that there's perhaps too much of the consipiracy theory stuff here (it's largely covered quite well on its own page), but given that Groom seems derive its celebrity largely from this stuff, it would be remiss not at least to mention it here. I think I've been as NPOV as I possibly could.
I'd have liked to put in the allegation (which numerous sources carry) that the base only declares a taxable value of $2M to the county (which is prevented from performing an in-person assessment), but I can't find a first-hand source (of what should, after all, be a public record). If someone can find such a record and point to it, I think this should be part of the page.
Information about the location and distances of geographic features is mostly derived from the USGS's topographic server (a link to a commercial vendor of the same maps is attached to the article). I've generally been rather liberal about rounding numbers to nice values.
The location of the base (wrt the lake) and the lengths of the runway(s) are taken from satellite images on FAS. As the photos are old, and reports differ as to whether the runway(s) have been lengthened or shortened, I duck the issue entirely. I've deliberately refrained from alleging the Groom runway to be "the longest in the world" as some sites do, as (from the satelite photos) it looks (to me) to be a long-but-not-exceptional three miles. Your milage, as they say, may vary.
Some may assert that the article could be an aid to terrorists or spies, but I think that is unfounded. The USGS accurately supplies an exceptionally detailed topographic map (showing the lake, but naturally not the base), and even mapquest will plot you a route to Groom (although I urge you not to follow it). The internet abounds with detailed maps, satellite photos, and details of base security.
- Finlay McWalter 18:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm and older and bolder wikipedian now (heck, this was my first ever article) so I've put in the tax allegation, phrasing it as "One researcher has reported" which seems NPOV. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the farm
Wait, isn't the Farm a CIA training facility? - Woodrow 01:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's a different The Farm, it's Camp Perry Virginia [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,752591,00.html) (not to be confused with Camp Perry in Clinton, OH [2] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-perry.htm)) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A-12 in 1962 - yes! (it's a different A-12)
Saying A-12 flying in 1962?? don't think so, User:H1523702 removed the fact that an A-12 Blackbird flew in 1962. I think H1523702 has confused the A-12 Blackbird with the entirely unrelated A-12 Avenger [3] (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm). A-12 Blackbird did indeed fly in 1962, or thereabouts:
- USS Intrepid Museum (which has an A-12 Blackbird) says 1962: [4] (http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/exhibits_a-blackbird.html)
- FAS shows A-11 Blackbird flying that year [5] (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71.htm) and a variant of A-12, the YF-12A. flying in '63.
As they hastily renamed Blackbird to SR-71 (from A-10, A-11, and A-12), the name A-12 was never official used by the airforce, and so it was reused later for Avenger, a fighter-demonstrator (confusing, huh) that had nothing to do with the SENIOR CROWN/OXCART spyplane programme. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I re-added the A-12 mention, but in a way that hopefully clarifies things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
removing see-alsos
A while ago an anonymous contributor added some See Alsos to this article. I think I'm going to remove them soon, as they're really all unsuitable. Justifications:
- Aurora - already mentioned in the body of the article
- Project Echelon - there's no evidence at all that Groom has anything to do with Echelon, and indeed it would be a fantastically stupid place to site it - I'm sure the US part is at the NSA's facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. The only reference I've ever seen relating Echelon to Groom is the Deus Ex game, to which we already link.
- Majestic-12 - we already link to the conspiracy theory page (at which Majestic 12 is adequately covered). Again, there's no evidence (even in the "black" definition of "evidence") to relate Groom and MJ-12, other that Deux Ex (as above).
- Purity Control - this is the most vexatious, as the only references I can find about this relate to episodes of the X-Files, and even at that not at Groom (which is why the X-files isn't referenced). Several months have passed and no Purity Control article is forthcoming (which might contradict this), so I can't see a justification for leaving it.
I'll hold off removing these for a few days, and comments are welcome. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- As there seems to be no opposition to this, I've removed the see alsos. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I remember seeing (at least the words) Majestic-12 associated with the Groom Lake facility in books (and possibly on the X-Files) before Deus Ex came out. Of course, a direct link is still unnecessary. -- SS 16:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
USGS images *REMOVED* from microsoft terraserver.
Now this is interesting. A couple months ago, the MS Terraserver had area 51 in it's famous places list. I was going to get an ariel shot for this site, since USGS images are public domain. I went to the famous places section...and it was gone! So, I tried going to the coordinates...got a white screen! It appears they removed them, and a fairly large area around area 51!
Here is an image of what is shown now (http://terraserver.microsoft.com/GetImageArea.ashx?t=1&s=17&lon=-115.81666666666666&lat=37.233333333333334&w=600&h=400&f=Tahoma,Verdana,Sans-serif&fs=10&fc=ffffffff&logo=1). Area 51 should be right in the middle of the screen...it was a couple months ago.
Very interesting.
/me *double* wraps his head in tinfoil.
Brandon.irwin 17:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Damn, we should have grabbed the image while we could. As that's both CORONA and TERRA images that have (illegally, IMO) gone missing, I've added info on said redactions to the article. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I found an image at
or perhaps this: 
which I guess could be used on this page. Both pictures found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/ Anybody want to add it? Nrbelex 10:09, 21, Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I found an image at
- I wonder if there was some under the table sort of deal made between Microsoft and the government for manipulating the photo.
JesseG 05:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ewww...
Where'd you learn to end a sentence with a preposition at? -- SS 16:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed lake category
I removed the endorheic lake category, for this is not a lake. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 20:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Russian satellite pics
"photographs from Russian satellites and the commercial IKONOS system are, however, easily available (and abound on the Internet)." Can we post links or the images themselves. i think it would make a nice addition. thanks! Jm51 04:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Other palces with such strong security
It is obvious that every security measure taken around Area 51 is given a lot of attention. What is interestin, however, is whether this level of security and hiding activities is typical. Three options:
- There are many large facilities belonging to NASA/Air Force/CIA/White House, etc. with the same level of security protection (including taking out satellite pics from TerraServer or not allowing them in the first place).
- All facts included in the article are taken out of context and in reality the security is quite lax, access limitations are tolerable and you can even book a guided tour if you ask nice.
- The measures taken at Area 51 are special. In all other places there is much more transparency and openness.
If the option 3 is correct, we have a further choice - what is the reason for these measures. One possibility is that they are taken only because all American wackos and tin-foil heads try to infiltrate this facility, preventing boring but useful work on testing toxic paint used on aircraft chassis or something. Another possibility is that the nature of the work warrants the secrecy, i.e. the government is doing something as exciting as studying UFOs and aliens (or something real, but no less "exciting" like bioweapons).
So does anyone know how the security measures compare with other government facilities. Paranoid 11:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the things you mention in point 1 are surprisingly insecure. NASA Ames is beside a freeway, protected by a chainlink fence (no guard towers, dogs, etc.). A few years ago someone managed to sit right outside the CIA gates and shoot a bunch of people with a rifle (dissapointingly, men in black did not immediately spring from the bushes). Edwards AFB doesn't even have a fence for much of its perimeter. Even the whitehouse just has a rather old fence. The actually secure parts of all of these facilities is really very small (the insides of buildings, mostly). And Area 51 really isn't that secure itself. It doesn't have a fence or guard towers, and a few years ago some Greenpeace activists, heading for Yucca flats, walked within a couple of miles and camped overnight at Papoose lake (supposed site of alien stuff at S-1); they didn't get picked up until they got sick of walking on the playa and walked down a road. Compared with other very very large places (and it is very large - you could fit several major cities into the valley) like air bases it is unusually secure. The security measures (as described in the article) overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that Groom is a nice quiet place for the Airforce to test its secret planes without them appearing in the papers. Stuff like bioweapons and death rays really don't need such a huge range, and most sinister plots and schemes can easily be conducted indoors anyway. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Worldwind URLs
Someone kindly added a NASA World Wind URL to this article, but our mediawiki installation doesn't support that URL scheme. I've asked the developers to consider adding it (worldwind's own mediawiki wiki does support it, so it can't be too hard). If they do, I'll uncomment this one. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarifying satelite images
I've removed the stuff about google containing lower-resolution landsat images - this is true, but it's because google presents lower resolution landsat imagery than the original source in general. Worldwind doesn't do this, and show the same resolution imagery for Groom as for anywhere else. Worldwind users (and google maps users too) shouldn't be confused by the very highly detailed images available for most major metropolises in the US - these aren't satellite photos at all, but montages USGS aerial photography (and are available only for major cities, due to the expense of generating them). So there's no conspiracy to be had in analysing google - they're just saving on bandwidth costs. Worldwind sees the same redacted USGS 1m imagery as MS Terraserver (they share the same datasource) - as the whole Nellis range is blocked out this isn't prima facie evidence of dark doings at Groom. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Aimless Links
I can see the point of wikifying an article but making links to articles that dont exist and probably never will because there is no important information about them is aimless. A user has made a link to groom dry lake, what information is there about groom dry lake than cannot be included in this article, and in the same vein what information is there about groom and papose mountain ranges. I think if no one creates an article these edits should be reverted. Gfad1 15:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)