Talk:Area 51

Source of name

IIRC, Area 51 gets its name from its status as part of Nellis Air Force Range - in that it's one of the many numbered areas on that range. I recall having a flight sim for the Amiga which included a map of the range, divided into numerically designated areas, and instructions that area 51 was off-limits (the game had a scenario mode which set off from there with an experimental B52; I wasn't aware of the UFO culture significance at the time, as this was pre-internet and pre-X-Files). Might be worth verifying.168.224.1.14 11:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New Pictures

I found these pictures on DARPA's website. I know that these were tested at Groom Lake, and these are all the trials of the J-UCAS or the X-45 as it was known during testing. Here is the link: http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-45/gallery.htm

Cheers. PETN 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

These pictures were taken at Edwards AFB and the Boeing plant at Palmdale. Compare the clear pattern on the ground here, east of Edwards with the one on that picture.

Even if the X-45 did undergo RCS testing at Groom Lake, since these aren't pictures from Groom Lake, they do not belong on the Area 51 page. They'd make fine pictures for the X-45 article, though (with proper permission, of course!) Flabreque 12:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: In the future, please add discussion topics at the end of the talk page, not the beginning.

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] (not to be confused with Camp Perry in Clinton, OH [2]) -- 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]. A-12 Blackbird did indeed fly in 1962, or thereabouts:

• USS Intrepid Museum (which has an A-12 Blackbird) says 1962: [4]
• FAS shows A-11 Blackbird flying that year [5] 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 [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=Wuka wuka boom boom bitch

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 http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/a51-680828-1_5.jpg or perhaps this: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/a51-680828-1_2.jpg 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 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)

Google Maps has also removed it throughout this week, their Photo was in colour so i wanted to put it here. Too sad it went down too.

Christian 21:25, Jul 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note that Google Maps images are copyrighted, so they can't be used on wikipedia. Anyway, google defaces them with little "google" watermarks, so they're ugly anyway. Frankly the existing satellite images are quite sufficient, and I'm currently working on other images which the article needs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, July 18, 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:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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)

I remember having seen projects that were classified "Ultra-Top-Secret". Now it is known that such documents were only there to impress the communist world during the cold war. Some of the documents were empty and some are available publicly in error. Especially on the NASA Freedom of Information server.

It may also be, that this overhelming security measures, especially because they aren't as secure as they claim to be are just a residute of that said cold war. I don't know, maybe ;-) i have actually no idea about it, but that's my input. I will create an account here an re-sign… Chris.

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)

Yeah, but I think that this didn't used to be the case. I'm pretty sure that the redaction wasn't in place until a couple of years ago (as commented above). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:22, July 13, 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)

I unlinked the valley/mountain ones. Two incredibly dull little ranges of mountains, and one dull valley. They're all remotely notable only by proximity to this page, and there's really nothing worthwhile to say about them. -Finlay McWalter | Talk July 8, 2005 12:33 (UTC)

The white bus

"A chartered bus (reportedly with whited-out windows) runs a commuter service along Groom Lake Road..."

Trivial I know, but Dreamland Resort disagrees:

"The windows are tinted as protection from the desert sun, but contrary to common belief not blacked out."

-- Andy29 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Specifically the page is http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/bus.html . Thanks, I'll amend the page to say nothing about the windows. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nellis Range Complex?

The article says: "It is part of the vast (4687 sq. mi. / 12139 km²) Nellis Range Complex (NRC)" - which does not (yet) have its own article. However, those dimensions are the same dimensions as are given for the Nellis Air Force Range in the NAFR article. The NAFR article also states that NAFR is a small part of the larger NRC. Needless to say, I'm a bit confused.

As far as I can tell the Nellis Range Complex also includes the Nevada Test Site whereas NAFR doesn't. Perhaps the Area 51 article should simply say that it is part of NAFR, which people can then read more about for themselves, rather than the NRC which at the moment links nowhere? --LemonAndLime 15:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are (as far as one can really tell) correct. The informal term "Nellis Range" does generally mean NAFR+NTS. At some point I plan to produce a map that shows NTS, NAFR, Area 51, and maybe the Desert National Wildlife Reserve and the National Wildhorse Management Area (the latter two overlap the former three in a hard-to-draw way) - that map and a small amount of text would be the "nellis range" article. The reason I say "as far as one an really tell" is that different sources place Area 51 either as part of NAFR or as some weird hybrid NAFR/NTS controlled area. Anyway, in the meantime I'll make the change you suggest. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Point

Just thought i should say that is it likely that the USA, the most technologically advanced nation in the world with almost bottomless resources in terms of information suppression, would allow photographs of a top secret facility to be disseminated on the internet without either substantial modification or substitution for more innocent photos? In short: the USA aren't so stupid as to allow photographs of their top-secret base to be released.

For deep-secret stuff like this, we really don't know. Absent evidence that doesn't exist, all of the following are "credible":

• there's an airbase in the desert; it's full of secrets
• the fact that we know about it makes it not terribly secret, so it's all misdirection (and the real secret place is elsewhere)
• they're not stupid, so they'd expect we'd think the obvious base was misdirection. So it's the best place for the secret stuff (and they love all the alien mythology stuff surround it - anyone who sees something in the sky gets conveniently painted as a space-kook)
• ah, but that's what they'd expect us to think... (etc.)

The photos show an airstrip in the Nevada desert, and that's all that can safely be inferred from them. This article really isn't about the secret airbase in Nevada; it's about the stories people tell about the secret airbase in Nevada. I've half a mind to add it to the "mythology" category. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, there was once a treaty signed with Russia to 'allow' Soviet satillites to overfly the site. I don't know if this treaty is still in place, but it was the source of several of the Area 51 photographs on the web a while back perfectblue97

There's no need for a treaty for satellites, because states don't own the space above their countries (I believe the definition is the "edge of space"). For aircraft, a bilateral USSR-USA open-skies policy was mooted during the Cold War, but fell through. Lately there is such a treaty, allowing surveilance aircraft overflights - see Treaty on Open Skies. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna vandalise...

...at least make it funny, clever or observant. 85.96.126.25 said "Can you see that thing in the pic?(at left top corner is it a UFO????)", referring to the picture of the warning sign at the border. Apart from the fact they mean top right and not top left, it did make me think: what is that small hovering object there? I have a few ideas.

1: It's a security camera. From other pics I've seen the stands they are on are extremely thin (and white) and might not necessarily show up in a photo at range. This is highly unlikely as the stand would have to be ridiculously tall for the camera to appear there.

2: It's a pave-hawk helicopter, in the distance, either coming face on towards the photographer or moving away.

3: It's something else.

4: It is actually an alien spacecraft, sizing us up for mutilation.

Sweet dreams everybody :D

It looks vaguely like a helicopter. I believe the cammo dudes modus operandi when faced with unexpected visitors is for the trucks to keep tabs on then until the chopper arrives. If the visitors decide to go for a walk the chopper flies down and swamps them with its rotorwake, kicking up such a storm of dust that the visitors can't see and have to sit tight. The cammo dudes call for the sheriff who takes the visitors away. This is rather a smart scheme, because it means that the visitors didn't actually get detained by the cammo dudes at all, and so can't question a cammo dude in any subsequent legal proceedings. In order to get where he is, the photographer has already driven some distance from the highway (and in doing so has marked himself as worthy of cammo dude attention). So you'd expect the chopper to be around by that time. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

True, it probably is a chopper, although according to the excellent dreamland resort site detentions are less regular that you suggest, and are almost exclusively reserved for those who actually cross the (poorly marked!) border into the restricted area. The story about the bloke getting a dust storm courtesy of the helicopter on public land seems to be true, however, despite the fact that its clearly harrassment (sp?). From what I've read, cammos go out of their way to avoid being seen - that one in the jeep on the crest of the hill in the pic may well be about to kick into reverse gear! --LemonAndLime 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Its a UFO. Seen too many different types helicopters, on the 'net, the news, seen them in person. That thing is not a helicopter. Good, well focused pix. You should place it in the UFO article. Martial Law 09:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's something strange. Like some kind of animal that has adapted to spend a lot of time in the air, or something. Possibly some kind of alien with hollow bones who's embyro are covered in a hard shell like thing at birth. Oh wait. It's a damn bird. Scotto 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Just thought I would chime in that, thanks to the Co-ordinates given on this article and thanks to a program I just downloaded, Google Earth, I can see hi-res, color, and as close as 1000 ft off the ground images of Area-51. I notice that this was brought up above, but my images are clear. That is so cool, I am busy exploring the place right now. I was just wondering if this page could do with any of those pics if you guys want them. Thanks. P.S. The C.I.A. cant find me from the internet can they? I dont want an elite hit squad sent after me! Banes 17:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Images on Google maps are copyrighted (and defended fiercely by the satellite imagery companies that own them) - you've far more to fear from SpaceImaging than the CIA :) The images we do have (a 1960s Corona spy satellite image, and a 1990s Landsat-based NASA World Wind image) really will have to suffice. I'm working on a fancy political_topographic map of the whole NAFR/NTS area, but it'll be while yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wasnt sure about the copyright policies regarding satellite images. But I was rather amazed at the detail on these satellite images, you can see clearly the cars and jets the employees use to commute. Too bad about the copyrights, best stay out of trouble. Banes 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure those aren't employee cars (it is a curiously large car park, I'll admit). Most of them are white, and most look (I think) like trucks or vans. The ones that aren't white all look like some muted colour (khaki or grey, perhaps); I can't see any that are red or blue or green (the colours normal people choose for their vehicles). So I think these must be various facilities vehicles, tenders, shuttlebusses, etc. I don't think anyone commutes overland from Vegas (only the JANETs, as it's so far) and there's no mention anywhere I can find of folks commuting from Alamo etc. by car (they seem to park in city lots near the NAFR shuttle and take it). You're right about the detail, there's all kinds of interesting stuff. Dreamland Resorts have an annotated map here based on their analysis of the satellite photos. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

That map is very good. I could almost swear that I can see cars there, but you are right, all the vehicles are dim, either white, army green, or some form of grey. But these images sure are fascinating. One question, though. Does this article consist of facts, if there are any, or is it a combination of rumors and a few facts? I guess its hard to know really. Banes 14:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything here is derived from pretty good sources. The geography stuff comes from maps and satellite photos. The history is mostly from Ben Rich's book (which is why it mostly stops with F117, which was 1970s stuff), and some from David Darlington's book. The FAS page was a source for some, and a fact check for others. JANET and base security stuff come from Glen Campbell's website and the Dreamland Resort website. Ideally we'd have something more official than Dreamland Resorts and Glen Campbell, but both are long time respected experts in the field (they're as good as we're likely to get), and all these sources tell pretty much the same story. The article really doesn't say much about what happened at Groom since F117 (because none of these reliable sources say anything much on that subject), and resorts to a little "sourced handwaving" (sources being Darlington, Campbell, Tom Mahood, and Dreamland Resort). We don't say how many people work there, or how many commute, but the buildings Dreamland Resorts thinks are barracks would hold a thousand or more, and the JANET flights (confirmed from numerous sources) would take at least that many again. Absolutely none of this comes from Bob Lazar or the UFO talk show conspiracy guys. We do have to mention the UFO and conspiracy stuff, but it's in its own little box (where I'm very glad to day it's stayed). Ditto for the popular culture stuff. Overall I think the article is pretty conservative about what it says (no claims of death rays, alien visitors, secret prisons, transcontinental underground railroads, etc.). Frankly I think the article is featured-article quality (a translation of it in German is featured on the DE wikipedia, btw), but I've never nominated it, mostly because the sources (while good, and checked against one another) aren't of the same caliber as many articles have available to them (there's no "USAF Guide to Groom Lake", for example). If you find anything that isn't addressed by the exlinks and references quoted in the article, let me know and I'll track down where it came from ASAP. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thats good to hear, I can see the article does indeed steer clear of the nutty rumors. Overall I agree with you, its featured article standard.Banes 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Runway 30/12 Information?

The article says that there are only two runways. But Google Earth shows a third runway, 30/12, on the southwestern side of the base. But I don't have any measurements. Can somebody help me out here? Bayerischermann 04:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah you are right, runway 30/12 is normally used as a taxiway but is occasionally used by small prop janet planes. Although i dont know the measurments the article is inaccurate saying 32/14 ia area 51's sole operating runway. Gfad1 11:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

dont know if its the one you're talking about, but a recent Discovery channel show (well, I'm actually watching it at the moment, its that recent) shows from two photos that a third, large runway was constructed some time between 1988 and 1994.

You may be talking about a new taxiway perpendicular to the 14/32 runways that was built just next to the Janet Terminal. On the more recent GoogleEarth images, it's still under construction (you can see the ground has been cleared/levelled), and Dreamlandresort has pictures of it. Flabreque 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Something Weird

According to Google Earth, Another lake, at the NorthWest of Area 51, the Satelite image showed that the lake has circles in the center of the lake and on the Northward ground . But The image showed that the lake seemed to have water in it. Do you think this is the place where rumous about the UFOs come from? Here is the coordinate of the place: 37°29'16.29"N 116°13'41.38"W.

If you have ever read wikipedia you will know it is an online encyclopedia. I hardly think it is a place to discuss where aliens (which FYI dont even exist) come from. Also none of the lakes at or near area 51 have any water in them, they are all dry lakes, so i dont know where you are looking. And finally those rings are bombing targets for all the air force training which goes on in the area. Gfad1 15:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon: that lake is Kawich Dry Lake, and the circles on it as, as Gfad1 says, are gunnery targets used by pilots training at the NAFR. Let's face it - if someone was hiding aliens, they'd not be silly enough to leave a big sign on the ground that could be spotted by some teenager on Google Maps, would they? Gfad11: it's not true that the lakes never have any water in them, just not very much, and not for very long. Las Vegas gets around 4 inches of rainfall every year (I was there in January and it poured for three days solid), and Groom gets much the same. In a dry winter it's enough to make the Groom playa squishy, and in a wet one the entire lake will have a few inches of standing water. It can last a week or more like that. This, of course, gives the lie to the nonsense about the "Cheshire Airstrip" (the claimed runway at Papoose Lake which supposedly appears when it's sprayed with water), as it would get nice and wet and visible in the winter rains. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Move proposed

• Strong oppose - keep Area 51 where it is. The article about the base is overwhelmingly what people will expect when they search for "Area 51" - everything else on the disambig page is named after it, and is trivial by comparison. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Finlay McWalter. -- Curps 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose — no reason has been given for this move; if there's a good one it's lost on me. --Gareth Hughes 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

clearly if you were experienced enough to make a claim like that, you would have noticed that the move was requested with the reason simply as "disambuguation" (with other Area 51 (disambiguation) articles. )

• Oppose. As per Gareth and this is sorta like claiming that Stockholm should be moved to Stockholm, Sweden. Peter ^Isotalo 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the move request since I feel it's wholly unreasonable and is obviously not garnering any kind of support. And there hasn't even been any attempt to motivate it.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that this should have been removed until the five days that the WP:RM guidelines suggest. If Fsdfs reinstates it I will support him/her in the decision to re-instate. Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check this user's contribution history, you can see that the reason he wants to move Area 51 may be so that he can promote Alienware Area 51, a computer brand [6]. He is also creating articles and links for other Alienware computer brands [7] [8]. Meanwhile, he has nominated various Dell computer brands for AfD. ([9] [10] [11] and several others). -- Curps 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I wondered why Fsdfs was a "visited link" in my web browser, and that's the same person who's single-handedly changed vast swathes of Free Software / Open Source and related articles. While most of the edits are reasonable, it might be worth finding a VIP-like area to watch these contributions (I wouldn't call them vandalism, just worth an extra-careful watch). Ojw 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I propose WP:SATAN (wikipedia:Spammers, AstroTurfers, Autobiographers, and Nutcases)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This user (Fsdfs) now agrees that the page should not be moved [12]. For a long polemical essay on his philosophy concerning open source, see [13]. -- Curps 10:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

SUGGESTED REVISION

Notice File:Area51drylake.jpg There are two runways inside the lake next to the bigest one. In this image their names are visible:Image:Area51drylake2.jpg

What about saying something about them in the article? Thanks

sorry but i've just found out that google earth images cannot be distributed, i'm just a rookie here, could someone remove the image i've uploaded? thanks

The two images referred to above are clear violations of Google Earth (and / or their imagery vendors) copyrights, and will shortly be deleted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

Could anybody get me a map from Ardsley, NY to Area 51?

If you really must go (there's absolutely nothing whatever for you to see), you'd go to Las Vegas and then follow the map on this page. That'll get you to Rachel (as will a regular Rand McNally roadmap). Beyond that you'd need to travel over dirt roads. Someone in Rachel will gladly sell you a map, but you have to realise that if you actually succeeded in getting far enough onto onto government land to see anything they they absolutely would kill you, or at the very least throw you in a hole so deep you could apply for Australian citizenship. IMO there's absolutely no point whatver in going anywhere near Area 51 (a bleaker, duller, more blasted place you'd never find); I'm sure people are going to discover more about Area 51, but they'll do so in America's courtrooms and archives, not by driving around in the desert. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Lawsuit

Am currently watching a discovery channel show on this - one of the plaintiff's laywers states that one of the plaintiffs has WON his case, and that the rest are still pending, and that the statements that the plaintiffs lost are false, he says its government disinformation, trying to divert attention from the case and thus from groom lake itself... in addition, they sealed his office, posted a notice on the door (shown in the video) that disallows anyone but him from entering, and he says that STILL nobody else is allowed to enter.

Can you cite this Discovery Channel show (its name) and give us some direct quotes? A website or print source citation would be good too. Was the lawyer quoted Jonathan Turley? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, can't. I didn't think to make note of the title while it was on... but I posted the above while it was actually on, (though I suspect as a repeat) so perhaps the name can be tracked down by the time and date? Not much help, I know. Sorry...Jafafa Hots 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tacit blue/JSTARS

A few days ago user:Arado added "Since 1982, the Northrop Tacit Blue experimental JSTARS aircraft was tested here.". Firstly, this needs citations; our claims about F117, U2, and SR71 come from the Rick and Darlington books, but they don't talk about tacit-blue or JSTARS. Secondly, the sentence makes no sense. Tacit Blue was a stealth demonstrator aircraft, JSTARS an electronic battlefield command aircraft - they two couldn't possibly be more difficult. Perhaps Arado is confusing Tacit Blue with the (much earlier) stealth fighter prototype Have Blue. Pending a citation supporting this claim, and an intelligible resolution to the naming mixup, I've removed the offending sentence. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Offending sentence? See:[14] and [15].--Arado 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a single page in that search says tacit blue is joint stars - indeed several show just what I, and the corresponding wikipedia articles, already say - joint stars is a 737, tacit blue is a stealth demonstrator. One says the programs were related. We need evidence, and you've not supplied any to support your assertion the two are the same, or that joint stars has anything to do with groom. FAS and abovetopsecret do say Tacit Blue was tested at groom, so I'll add that. Please note that citing sources means actually referring to specific pages, not blind google searches that return a bunch of useless geocities pages. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hangar 18 at groom or wright-patterson?

An anon changed the sentence saying the hangar-18 song is about groom to being about wright-patterson AFB. He might well be right; there's not much evidence. The malmsteen song clearly is about area 51 (that's the name of the album its on) and there is a hangar 18 at groom (FAS). But, bar the usual angelfire weirdies, there's little to say the one in the songs the one at groom. Indeed, the generally very reliable abovetopsecret says the alien thing was Wright Patterson [16]. So, either 1) there's no real evidence the song is about groom or 2) it's really about WPAFB. Either way, it doesn't belong in the groom article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheshire landing strip

Is it worth pointing out that the link to Tom Mahood's article clearly mentions that this strip is supposed to be in area 19 - Pahute Mesa in the upper northwest corner of the NTS (map of NTS) - and nowhere near Groom or Papoose Lakes? Flabreque 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth mentioning at all; it's not our job to refute every crazy unsourced sub-Art Bell fantasy. We mention, in general, the various wack theories people have about Groom, but I think we should leave a point-by-point discussion, and refutation, to detailed websites like Dreamland Resort. I think both the claims and their refutations rely on too much unsourced hearsay. Anyway, the Nevada DOT says there's a military airstrip at Pahute Mesa (and I put it into our NTS map). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hangar 18, clarified

The Hangar 18 of alien legend is definitely located at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. This is where the "alien bodies" from the Roswell crash were supposedly taken in 1947, and thenceforth the hangar became a top secret, restricted access area. The story goes that President Truman once asked to see the place, and the Air Force Chief of Staff at the time (I believe it was either Hap Arnold or Curtis LeMay - forgive me) famously said something along the lines of, "hell no, and don't ever ask again!" Nonsense, to be sure. At any rate, in those days Wright-Patterson was home to the Air Force's leading research center, and it would be at least plausible that if something sensitive were recovered (at Roswell or anywhere else), Wright-Pat is probably where it would have been taken in 1947. There is in fact a Hangar 18 there (as there is on most Air Force bases with at least 18 hangars), and it is indeed a restricted-access hangar. However, many bases have such restricted areas, that doesn't necessarily mean classified material or equipment is stored there. There are any number of reasons for a hangar to be restricted.

As for the Area 51 connection/confusion, it's quite simple. There is indeed a Hangar 18 at Groom Lake, and it happens to be the largest hangar on the base. Some who are only superficially familiar with the "Hangar 18" legend notice its presence at Area 51, and then naturally tend to add 2 and 2, coming up with 5. "Of course! Area 51 has aliens, and they're kept in Hangar 18, which I can see right there in the picture!" They're either unaware, or choose to ignore, that the base at Area 51 didn't exist in 1947.

If you insist on believing a myth (captured alien spacecraft), at least place the myth at its proper geographic location! Crazed actor 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

caca is good!

Persistent Vandalism

What can be done about the now near-constant vandalism. I'm sure there is some procedure for this but I dont know what it is. Gfad1 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a passing phase and (compared with articles like George W. Bush) it's pretty low key. It is possible for articles to be semi protected, meaning anons and new users can't edit them, but we're nowhere near the level where that's justified. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, an article which has been clearly vandalised 13 times within the last 7 days by what appears to be one or two people! An article which requires reverting up to twice a day clearly needs to be protected.

JANET registrations

I think we should be a tad more equivocal about to whom the JANET aircraft are registered. Glen Campbell's list [17] circa 2001 shows some to the USAF and some to Great Western Capital. Moreover there's a bunch of interesting JANET stuff (including the newspaper ad recruiting pilots) at http://www.lazygranch.com/janair.htm - if I've time, I'll try and integrate some of this stuff into the article. Does anyone know if the FAA's database correlating tail numbers with owners is available online somewhere? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 07:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth

I've just edited the article, altering the sentence "Google Earth is another great tool to view Area 51" to be less subjective. I'm not sure I've done it very well, however. Somebody please re-write (or delete, but personally I reckon a mention of Google Earth should be in the article. I mean, you type in "area 51" and it whizzes you right there...) LemonAndLime 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text, which was added to the very start of the page.
"West of Frenchman lake is a circle formation, concerete circle is a future underground nuclear explosion site. Or this the site choose for the convential explosive the 100 kiloton bomb."
I don't know anything about the subject, so if this is useful, please tidy it up and re-add it in a more appropriate place in the article. --David Edgar 07:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You were quite right to do so: it's bollocks. The problem with Google Earth/maps is that every twelveyearold thinks he's a photoreconnaissance expert, and the whole Nellis/NTS area gives them apoplexy. It's full of weird looking roads, installations, gunnery targets, pipelines, pylons, and the odd airbase. We occasionally have to fight off exlinks to mad sites which claim they can see flying saucer launchers and alien autopsy shacks, where in fact all that's there is some fairly standard airbase type stuff and a huge amount of discarded military junk. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates are {37}° 14′ 24.73″ N 115° 49′ 6.81″ W as far as i can see

Thijs tdw 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates are already given in the "Geography" section, giving degrees and minutes of arc. There's no point quibbling about seconds of arc when the object in question is more than 2 minutes of arc long. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page?

It is not the specific topic that I am here to address, but the comment made about it at the beginning. I feel that their should be a page to generally discuss this which should be called the discussion page as this page is. The article should address the issue and the discussion should discuss it among readers of the article. I simply think that this would make wikipedia better and more interesting. Please let us talk about your site.

I don't really understand what you want. If you want to have general discussions about Wikipedia, unrelated to "Area 51" or any other article, then there is WP:VP and its sub-pages. If you want to have discussions about "Area 51" but unrelated to Wikipedia or that specific Wikipedia article, then that discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia (our resources are already stretched pretty thin; we're not going to start running a general chat forum). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Area 51 was never known as "The Farm." That term is reserved for the CIA training facility near Quantico, Virginia. Reference removed. Mugaliens 16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the word "apparently," as more than enough evidence exists, including revelations from Kelly Johnson as to the SR-71 development program, the F-117 program, and others, that this is indeed it's primary function. Mugaliens 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Runway dimensions were innacurate. Changed to match high-resolution satellite photography. Mugaliens 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of first flight of SR-71 in error. Changed to match timeline found on SR-71 page. Mugaliens 16:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you, but http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/mar98/cover/sr71.htm Lists the first flight of the A-12 as April 26, 1962. The first SR-71 was flown in 64, but the A-12 flew before that. Correcting article. Flabreque 02:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alien interview paragraph?

Should this even be there? The Alien interview video page has been marked for deletion and this paragraph repeats most of the info (if you can call it that!) from that page. At the very least, the link in the general references should point to the video itself - which is available on video.google.com - not to some website selling the video... Flabreque 03:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)