Talk:Area 51/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Ewww...

Where'd you learn to end a sentence with a preposition at? -- SS 16:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• To what are you referring?

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)

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)i think that this is a great articel!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New satelite pictures mabye

Someone go on google earth and press the print screen button then paste it into paint and make a picture of area 51. You can see a lot of things like the planes, buildings, cars, and towers very clearly. Just a suggestion.

Google Earth images are copyright, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

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)

I think the interview is notable and should be mentioned. If the article is kept we should link there, if it isn't then we should mention it (but one or two paras is enough). Linking to such things is a problem however we do it - it's (almost certainly) a copyvio when its on google vido or youtube or whatever (and we should avoid linking to copyvios) and equally we're not in the advertising business, so a link to a "buy this now" is bad too. I suppose of the two the google video is, marginally, preferable. -- Middenface 08:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've added the "citequote" template, in case the person who added this blurb wants to add something. But so far, all the references to this alien interview go back to an appearance by the "Victor" in quesiton on Art Bell's radio show along with Sean David Morton who is an exposed fraud. -- Flabreque 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd keep the basic mention of the video, but just zap all the stuff you've added <<citequote>> to. The video is barely notable, but we don't need to indulge in this particular fantasy over the myriad of similar ones. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to "JANET" interior

This supposed picture of a JANET plane's interior looks very similar to another picture of a United Airlines B737 taken by the same photgrapher on the same day over international waters...

Picture of a United Airlines B737's interior taken by Tony Lu in August 2003

Picture of a JANET B737's interior taken by Tony Lu in August 2003

I don't think that JANET flights would have skyphones in them, nor United Airlines' upholstery. I also don't think that you'd be allowed to take pictures of the inside of the plane and live to tell people about it. Flabreque 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, clearly a hoax addition (shame we didn't catch it much sooner). That said, I don't agree that the airphones and upholstery are, by themselves, a giveaway (naturally the other pic you found clearly is). As the 737s are leased, they've probably been in the service of regular airlines before, so you'd expect regular airline fittings like airphones and branded upholstery. There's no reason the USAF or the leasing company would take these out (although I'm sure the airphones won't actually work). Middenface 13:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, by themselves, the presence of airphones are not proof that this plane wasn't a JANET. However, the fin number given on myaviation.net under the JANET picture has belonged to the USAF or various military contractors since the early seventies (as per dreamlandresort's forum), so unless EG&G is rummaging through UAL's garbage bin for spare seats, the uphosltery is one of the leads pointing towards a hoax. -- Flabreque 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissapearing external links

On August 25, someone removed all the expernal links and replaced them with the letter "i". I assume this was a mistake, but if the deletion of the section was intentional, can the person who did the delete say why? -- Flabreque 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimapia

It's a tragedy that wikimapia is linked at all (never mind twice). Its entry for this area is just a random collection of unverified junk and childish humour. WP:EL says links should be to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" - for this article Wikimapia provides the same image as Google Maps (linked from the same template), beyond that Wikimapia provides no accurate material whatever. Middenface 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• My rationale for linking to wikimapia is to promote another open content project through a subject matter that is likely to inspire activity (in other words, i linked to groom lake on wikimapia because the content there is so low quality, not in spite of it). One can hardly dispute the potential for complementary collaboration between this article and the disputed link. popefauvexxiii 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not an acceptable criteria for making a link, per WP:EL. Links are to be of service to readers of Wikipedia; that's the only reason we have them. Wikipedia is not an open-source advocacy centre, and linking to bad content in the hope of improving it, which perhaps of service to that content and its providers, isn't of service to wikipedia or its readers. Middenface 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with wikimapia is the editing policy, to remove a joke - find it, report it, if enough do it's removed, so most jokes remain and swamp the real information... Wikipedia has a much better (but not perfect) policy, find it, remove it, put the onus on the joker to put it back ... in most cases they either won't notice or won't bother .. so the real information swamps the jokes ... is there a more reliable annotated map we could use instead ? ^Jaster 10:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dreamland Resort's map is detailed and levelheaded. Middenface 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• the real problem is the template Mapit-US-cityscale which autolinks to Wikimapia first! the rest of the map resources are good maps but wikimapia seems to be full of "my house" "where I work" and very little actual notes (if you can see the notes in amoungst the Adverts!) - It is basically a very good idea terribly implemented, in it's current state why is it a default link? ^Jaster 11:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Deletions

Please explain why, in detail, the following deletions were effected:

External links

-

- *Area 51 - History, Structures, and Employees - * WikiSatellite view of Area 51 at WikiMapia - *Dreamlandresort - detailed history of Area 51 - *Nellis AFB - *High resolution pictures of Area 51 (Updated) - *Topographic Map of the Emigrant Valley / Groom area - *Satellite photograph of "Area 51" - *Google Maps satellite image - Recently updated with high detail images (Feb 5, 2006). - *Aerial Photos from different decades, overlaid with Google Maps interface - *Photographs of McCarran EG&G terminal and JANET aircraft - *Official FAA Aeronautical Chart of Groom Lake - * Area 51 is located at 37.240203°N 115.818558°W / 37.240203; -115.818558

Is someone out there a government moron trying to hide things which are plentifully available on the Internet??? Please get a clue. Or two. Or three or four or... Intelligence increases in proportion with the numbers... Mugaliens 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way - LINKS RESTORED. Mugaliens 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They were already restored last week. Now they're all duplicated. Reverting Mugaliens' change. -- Flabreque 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad - I think I was comparing changes since my last change, and failed to notice that the links had been restored. Thanks for cleaning up, Flabreque. Mugaliens 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

DOES ANY ONE KNOW THE AREA 51 PASSWORD FOR THE SECONDARY HARD DRIVE ?

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)

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)

Music Section

There is also a song named "Area 51" by Infected Mushroom, a psy-trance (Psychedelic Trance Techno) band.

History, where is it

The title is preety self-explanitory. but where is the part of the article regarding the earliy "life" of area 51? HHS.student

Look under "operations at Groom Lake". Flabreque 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Entire chunks of the article is ripped from http://www.crystalinks.com/area51.html A Clown in the Dark 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an extremely lame wikipedia mirror. Please check the edit history of articles before slapping copyvio notices on them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Aces on the Area 51

Hi everyone, I´d like to know something. It is supposed to be that the top aces, or the best pilots of the U.S. Air force are assigned to the Area 51, right?

Wrongful death lawsuit

> The Ninth Circuit rejected Turley's appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it, putting an end to the complainants' case. <

This statement is not necessarily true. The U.N. has authority to operate international courts, so the widows could try to obtain remedy there. The worlwide negative publicity would probably force US Gov't to settle for big money and provide the necessary info for medical treatment. 195.70.48.242 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the UN can't do that. If a country's supreme court rejects or refuses to hear an appeal, the case ends there. The UN is only involved in prosecuting people accused of things like war crimes or genocide, and even then the United States has an exemption which prevents any of its citizens being prosecuted by the UN. I don't think the rest of the world cares that much about one person's illness when there's literally thousands of people being butchered every day in various civil wars. What happened to Turley is wrong, but the international arena isn't going to be of any help.

Runways 03 and 09?

If you look at this on Google Maps by clicking here, you can see what look like two very long extra runways on the lake bed itself, very faintly, at angles from the main runway. One is labelled 03L / 03R, the other is labelled 09L / 09R (you have to zoom in fairly close). Are they runways, and if so why aren't they surfaced like the main runways? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

They are runways, but would only be used in the event of very high crosswinds or an emergency. Flabreque 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter Image Deletion

I noticed that the letter is up for deletion; there's not much discussion about it, and only two people have actually voted on it. What are people's thoughts? I personally don't have a problem with it. Titanium Dragon 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Area 51 garden?

Of all the features of the base this one puzzles me the most: it appears to be a garden. It has bright green trees, and there appear to be two or three waterfalls there too. Why would someone go to the bother of installing a feature like this on a secret airbase in the middle of a desert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

It is called Slater lake (named after the base commander at the time, Col. Hugh Slater). It used to be a recreational facility for the base personnel during the OXCART project, but is more than likely off-limits nowadays due to the proximity of high power radar gear. Flabreque 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I thought it might be for purposes of keeping up morale or something, didn't seem to be any other reason to do it. Interesting that they appear to have maintained it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

video games

Someone got it wrong. it is area 53 on GTA:SA. Matt E.

It's actually Area 69 in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas... --GSK 15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried deleting this line:

== Operations at Groom Lake ==Area 51 is a conspiracy where aliens live and lay their eggs. They feed on the insides of humans so it is a hidden operation. Nobody is to know about this operation so shhhhh.

However, the text does not show up on the edit page. It shows the text above and below -- but not this stupid stuff. Can somebody who knows more about editing remove this please?

AJHMOM 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ajhmom

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)

Of course, it is only your opinion that aliens don't exist...--76.188.151.166 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, prove that aliens don't exist. There is a very high probability that intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the universe, and alien life has already been somewhat proven to exist(I have read.). The theoretical formula for calculating the probability of the existence of intelligent alien life within our galaxy is : multiply the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

by the number of stars that have planets

by the number of those planets that can support life

by the number of those planets where life actually arises

by the number of those planets where intelligent life develops

by the number of those planets where technology develops

by the span of time a technological civilization survives.

Application to the Milky Way to estimate how many civilizations like our own exist:There are hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy, most(or many depending) have planets, and if one or two of the planets surrounding a star are suitable for life, and life arises, and only 1% of the planets where life arises develops a technologically advanced civilization, there would still be millions of worlds like our own out there. I apologize for going off topic.

NorskSoldat 22:56, 28 January 2007 (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)

Addition of Area51 Computers to Other?

Area51 computers is web hosting company founded in 1998 with a name based off of the popular conspiracy that the technology boost came from the ufo crash in Roswell where technology from the craft was moved to area51. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiamori (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Lots of things are named Area 51. Very few of them are remotely notable, and being named after something notable does not make something notable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Game References

In Grand Theft Auto: San andreas there is a spoof of Area 51 called Area 69 near "Las Venturas" which is a spoof itself of Las Vegas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spydript (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Papoose Lake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u65_-lrXFIk - watch this link and you´ll see why Papoose Lake is amazing! Does anybody knows something about it? In my opinion doesn´t UFO´s excist. I believe there are (X-) planes in the hangar. Dagadt

All the information about Papoose Lake in that video is speculation based mostly on the testimony on of person: Bob Lazar, whose credibility is shaky at best. If you want more info about it, read Dreamland Resort's FAQ or Tom Mahood's Papoose Lake primer. Flabreque 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer Flabreque! I hope more people will write something down here! Dagadt

Environmental Lawsuit

It sounds as if the civilian contractor survivors did not get adequate medical treatment for their exposure because the US Gov't wanted to keep secret what kind of substance was burned and the specific method of medical treatment would possibly disclose that?

That would contradict US constitution (right to live) and especially Amendment 14. I can't get why SCOTUS refused to hear the case then?

Why didn't the people try further, e.g. international court of justice? Considering the huge media turmoil when the russkies refused to say what gas substance was used in the theatre raid on chechen terrorists and how they were eventually forced to release halothane / narcothane info for effective treatment of hostages, the same could have been achieved to the Area-51 victims via UN and the press. 82.131.210.162 11:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the workers at that installation signed off some of their rights when they agreed to work there (related example: military personnel are not permitted to make disparaging comments about the president of the US); what the specifics of those agreements were, I don't know, but they may be the reason. If so, then they have no standing to bring it to court. If not, they do. In addition, this might be one of those instances of the "lesser of two evils." While these people might be afflicted with a malady or even dying, their work may be protecting the crews of ships or aircraft. In turn those people are protecting millions of US citizens.

"Why didn't the people try further, e.g. international court of justice?" Because the ICJ has no standing in the United States. Any ruling in that court would not be recognized by the US (almost all international courts are prone to manipulation through political pressure; just look at the UN).

Please understand I am not excusing their actions, merely pointing out that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Janet (airline)

On that article (discussion) you can read that JANET is maybe called after a girl! In my opinion the story could be true. Does somebody knows something about the author (Janet)? Dagadt

That article has no sources whatever. Wikipedia articles without reliable sources are worthless. The person on the talk page tells a long story, but provides no evidence and cites no reliable sources. Wikipedia articles on secret subjects are perpetually afflicted with people who show up with elaborate stories, complex personal theories, and excessive gibbering about their personal conspiracy claims. We should just ignore these people - only evidence lets us build a better article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Buildings

We should create a new article section about the buildings on Area 51. On dreamlandresort.com you can see an amazing map about the Area! We could insert a satelite photo from Google Earth for example label and it. Write your name down here if you want to help me. I´ll contact you on your User site. Dagadt

I don't think dreamlandresort.com is a sufficiently reliable source for detailed exposition of what goes on in a secret base. Don't get be wrong, it's a fine site that doesn't stray into fantasy and conspiracy, but fundamentally it's one guy's website, and he makes no claim that he's been there or seen these things himself. Instead he's repeating and interpreting other people's stories, and the analysis of the buildings etc., while credible seeming, isn't based on official documents or sourced eyewitness testimony. For stuff outside the base (stuff about the cops, groom road, the bus, etc.) then I think he's a perfectly good and reliable source - because he does say he's seen that stuff, and of course that's a perfectly reasonable claim that you or I could easily verify if we bothered to drive out there and sit in the same parking lot. Furthermore, I think the relative positions of Wikipedia and DreamlandResort in the "area 51 information ecology" are compatible: we report the stuff we can verify from reliable sources like Rich and Darlington and government publications, and he reports all the stuff people have told him off the record. While of course I'd love to have more detailed info in the Wikipedia article, I can't find reliable sources to support that; in their absence, dreamlandresort.com makes for a valuable and entertaining external link. And we absolutely positively cannot use imagery from Google Earth - they're copyrighted, and there is no sufficient fair use case to allow their use on Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading something like "this map was made by Area 51 employees" on the page. You have tu trust in them. 10 years ago you could said: Maybe area 51 excists, but I don´t think so...In my opinion there´s no better source than employees! You can always say: maybe, maybe, maybe, but a map like I want to creat would be very interesting for at least 50% of all Users. Dagadt

No, you don't have to trust them. Wikipedia articles have to be supported by reliable sources - some unsourced map drawn by unnamed persons aren't reliable sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can write that employees made the map and it´s unclear if it´s true what you can see. At least on Satelite photos you can see buildings which everyone can identified. Dagadt

There's no evidence, from any reliable sources, that "employees" did any such thing. And there's no evidence that "everyone" has identified anything. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/area51map.html Now you can see the map I mean. The label insn´t a secrete, you also can see it in a book about Area 51 - I´m sure!

Dreamland resort is not a reliable source for what goes on inside a secret base. If you're sure there's a book that has the same information, please tell us what that book is. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We could start a section about speculations of the use of the buildings you can see on Google Earth for example. By the way: The contets of the article "John F. Kennedy assassination" are also speculations! It´s not useless if we give people the possibility to experience more about the buildings...even if it´s mostly speculation! Dagadt

Everything in Wikipedia has to be sourced from reliable sources, even speculation. The Kennedy article (and likewise the 9/11 conspiracy theory article) contains speculations sourced from notable JFK/911 conspiracy theorists, who have written books and articles. What you're talking about is our speculation, or that from any old website, which is just original research, and isn't permitted in wikipedia. I don't understand why you persist in suggesting we despoil our well sourced, nonsense-free article with rubbish from the internet - we can (and do) link to dreamland resort - we should not, and can not, turn this article into a copy of it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Finlay! We´ll link to dreamlandresort. Dagadt

Incorrect Info?

I saw something on the discovery channel just yesterday about Area 51 - many of its facts contradict this article. I would find it hard to believe that the Discovery channel would have missed something about the government declassifying it. They said that the US government still denies its existence. Any thoughts? --Falconus 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does this article say they declassified it? It doesn't. It mentions a declassified document with redactions that journalists believe refers to Area 51; we don't say that document definately refers to Area 51, and we don't say the Government says it does, or doesn't. The government neither confirms nor denies anything. The article cites the presedential determinations (such as this one) which says ..."the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada", and is signed my someone named "William J Clinton" (whoever that might be). We also cite a letter from the Air Force saying "there is an operating location near Groom Dry Lake". These are primary historical sources, one served straight from a US Government website. What sources did the Discovery Channel cite for it's claim that they flat out deny it? - they'll have to be pretty good to contradict a sitting president, the US air force, and the secretary of the air force. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Accidents

I heard a JANET plane has been destryed a few years ago. How happened it? Maybe there was an incident at the base... Dagadt

Google is your friend Learn to use it. :-) Flabreque 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Area 51/gvt. relation

I remember reading on youtube that the gouverment only knows ca. 20% of all what happens at the base. The source is probably an employee of Area 51. We should trust him 100%, but I don´t know why he should lie and maybe somebody knows more about it...

I'm not sure what you're exactly mraning here. --MichaelLinnear 06:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An employee (identity unknown) working as cammo dude at Area 51 said that the base is like a special gouverment. The president himself only knows less than 20% of all what happens at the base.

Area 51 Employee

On youtube.com there are several parts from an Area 51 employee (he´s cammo dude). (Look for it under confession of an area 51 employee). The information are very interesting, and he makes a good impression. He says Ufo´s don´t excist, there are 4 floors under the ground (-1 black aircraft, -2 weapons, -3 laboratory, -4 very secret only about 10-15 people have ever seen this floor), and a lot of more!!! I think we could trust him - at least a bit -. I believe every word he says. If somebody is a youtube member, he should contact me on my userpage because you can only write to a user (I want to ask him questions) on youtube if you´re member. Dagadt

You'd have to try pretty hard to find a source more worthless and unreliable than that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That´s your opinion! I´m looking for a youtube user, who helps me! If you only want to write "worth things" you can only write about 4 sentences the gvt. told us about the operations at groom lake! Dagadt

Luckily "my opinion" squarely matches the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, which I persist in pointing you to, and which you persist on ignoring. You are welcome to believe in whatever unsourced hoaxes you want, but don't contaminate our nice encyclopedia with this crud. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don´t want to write something about the employee in this "nice" encyclopedia, but I´m looking for somebody who is youtube member and will contact me. Dagadt

Just sayin why do we even listen to them they denied existance when the pictures from the soviet union were right in front of them what ever they know whats going on there they dont share it with the general publice because they think a spy is going to recon and try to find out info on new air craft or some thing else we dont even know whats going on in there they could be watching us and seeing what we are doing and watching what we type on the suject you never know what there doing they never tell us what actuall going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.243.14 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackbird Programs

I have removed the section on "blackbird programs". It's worth having in this article, but there's no reason to have an empty section. If someone wants to add some info and put it back, that would be great. -Athaler 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored - it was vandalized earlier today, which is why you only saw a few words. Thanks for the note. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Squared?

Has anyone researched the idea that the military may have people in constumes and mysterious-looking planes in order to create rumors of aliens? Collin238 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Aviation journalist Nick Cook made a documentary UFOs: the secret evidence (details here) in which he hypothesised that the US government was (or had been, during the cold war) trying to covertly promote UFO sightings in the southwest, with the idea being that anyone who reported seeing a strange thing in the sky would be taken for a UFO nutter and ignored. But he didn't show any real evidence, strayed into cow-mutilation county, and dropped some clangers like claiming Edward Teller was head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, so it was entirely inconclusive and altogether disappointing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph looks like ass. Why do we need to know the length of the runways in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't. Fixed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Blurred Sign

It is not reliable that the sign says "Lethal Force Authorized" which is blurred anyway and might not state that any force is authorized. This is stated by one person without citation. In photos that show people standing nearby the sign there is nothing resembling "Lethal Force Authorized". The only other sites which show such a thing focus on sensationalism, such as poster stores and space alien theories. I also notice that the section of the sign purportedly stating that Lethal Force Authorized seems obscured by a superceding layer under the red words. The new painted words may be a relic of protests or an issuance of relaxed legal constraint or vehicular mandate. Last and never least: there is rarely any US military sign printed by the US military that authorizes lethal force against civilians. (anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.148.189 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the Wiki pic is a bit blurry, but the last line of red text in the bottom right corner really does say "Use of deadly force authorised". There are plenty of sites (Dreamland Resort, Webshots, Flickr, images.google.com, etc...) Like this one for example, where you can see high-res images like this, that show it clearly.

There are also signs that have a similar message at Beale AFB, Holloman AFB, and probably many other military installations around the world.

This being said, mentioning it in the image's legend is a bit sensationalist and I don't think the article would suffer if someone wanted to remove it. Flabreque 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it used at dedicated military installations around the world, but it's even used at military facilities on civilian installations. For example, at [Portland International Airport], there is an Air National Guard base which houses the 142d Fighter Wing, providing air defense for the Northwestern U.S., has signs just like these. And this is on a public airport. (Obviously, the signs are only on the "Portland Air Base" section. But there is a civilian-airport-employee-use perimeter road that runs right by this section that is used very regularly. Ehurtley (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The sign is largely boilerplate, and (as the article says) they certainly don't immediately shoot people who step over the border. The actual penalty indicated by section 21 of the McCarran Internal Security Act is "a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both", although the fine ($5000 dollars being a lot more in 1950 than now) may have been increased in subsequent acts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Picture With The Sign And The Cammo Dudes

Hey, does anyone know what that little dot above the plant that's really close to the right edge of the page is. I think it might be a helicopter, but I'm not sure, so what do you think it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.7.143 (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a helicopter. The possibility of a UFO being out in broad daylight at Area 51 is so slim, I can't even describe it. Regardless, I'll look into it a bit more tomorrow. --GSK 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a bird. Flabreque 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked my email correspondence with the person who took the picture and he confirms the vehicle is the "cammo dudes", but makes no mention of a helicopter (so I think it's either a bird or just a spec of dirt on the camera). He does say he crashed his car and that the cammo dudes didn't help him out :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture lists

I think the popular culture references to tv shows, movies and video games should be put in a separate (but equal) article "Area 51 in Popular Culture". Are you watchers on board?Mikelj 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that happened at least once before, but it got merged back in here. I've occasionally tried to thin the list out, but stuff always returns. If I had my way we'd only mention those popular culture things in which Groom was a central or at least significant part - not something mentioned once or twice, not the passing location of a single cartoon. So I would have the Area 51 games, the Dale Brown books, Delta Green, and maybe Stargate. For sure I'd remove all those links whose articles don't mention Area 51 (Family Guy, for example). Stuff that's generally about UFO abduction and saucer conspiracy stuff should be in an article about that (for example this article links to Taken, but that article gives no indication that the TV show is specifically about Groom Lake - if it's just a generic desert base then the link doesn't belong here). Much of the popular culture stuff is just trivial passing mentions. I'd favour a utilitarian approach (where we ask "what reasonable question would a visitor want this section to answer"); I can certainly imagine people asking "what books/games/movies are there about Area 51?" but I think it's nonsense to believe anyone asking "what comedy cartoons have briefly mentioned area 51 in a single episode?". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has indeed forked the content off to Area 51 in popular culture and, unsurprisingly, it's getting AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 51 in popular culture. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Have Drill/Doughnut/Ferry programs

I've been poking at articles on on Gail Peck and the Constant Peg program at the Tonopah Test Range (Area 52), and I noticed that this article doesn't have any information on Area 51's programs to study Russian MiGs (including the Have Doughnut, Have Drill, and Have Ferry programs). There's some information in the French Wikipedia: fr:Zone 51. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but these programs might be worth a mention here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with everything Area 51 related is getting reliable references. Even when stuff was done there, when it gets made public (like F117, like SR-71) official sources say it was at Nellis or Tonopah. And of course a lot of stuff really is at Nellis and Tonopah, so it's never safe to assume that everything secret that comes out of that general area must have concered Groom in particular. In this particular case the French Wikipedia appears to source what they have from area51specialprojects.com. I'm not familiar with it, so I've not formed an opinion as to whether it's really a WP:RS, and even then (for stuff like this, when there's such a paucity of solid reference material) it's always nice to have stuff corroborated. I think the Darlington book mentions (in passing) there being Soviet aircraft there, but I'd have to check. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the area51specialprojects site is run by the same folks running the Roadrunners Internationale site, a group of ex-area 51 folks. Dreamland Resort seem to think they're on the up and up, so this is why I used that as a cited reference for the French version of the article. I know that DLR and the above-mentioned sites are nothing more than personal websites on the topic, but as you mention, I don't think we'll see these documents on www.af.mil pretty soon. Flabreque (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it isn´t clear where the program take place, we could insert it on the Nevada Test and Training Range page, what´s you opinion towards that? Dagadt (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed out the reference to Area 51 in the episode 'Lost our Lisa' of The Simpsons.

Lisa: Area 51!? I found Area 51! Guard: (Guard shuffles nervously) No ma'am this is Area 51A

Name?

I am unable to find information on the origin of the name "Area 51" on this page. Also the letter from the USAF of which a picture is added says no area by that name is known to them. Who came up with that name (the involved parties active in the area), conspirators, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.176.151 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Apparantly, the Nevada test range used to be devided into "areas". Apparantly, the facility at Groom Lake was defined as Area 51 and apparantly is named as such on some older maps of the Nevada test site. As a more transparant example, the Tonopah Test Range is Area 52. The reference used in the wikipedia article there is this document, where Tonopah Test Range is clearly referred to as Area 52. BabyNuke (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a map showing the areas of the NTS. I've not been able to find a map old enough to show Area 51 before Lockheed started to use it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no such things as aliens

If there where aliens at area 51 you couldent get picteres of it and there would be more than 4 guys in a truck with m-16s. Put the logic together. There are no such things as aliens. All they are doing is experimenting with wierd aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornefromewater (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How the hell you know that? Been there? In the restricted areas? 205.240.146.247 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be friendly. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's most likely the truth that tests for new aircraft are conducted there by major DoD suppliers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. 71.199.104.170 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Video of the Google Earth Area 51 Examination

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AgNrlEqiB30 71.199.104.170 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvement is needed

We could improve this article by writing something about Area 51 employees. Instead of saying something only about famous employees (like Bob Lazer), we could try to find out on internet, more about general things. I´m sure that we can find interesting information! Dagadt

I seriously doubt anyone would find anything credible. Spartan198 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

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.

5: Some aliens were spotted having strange interaction with each other that was very much how humans would have sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.79.117 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Could somebody discribe where this strange object is?

This pic, apparently. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the picture! In my opinion it is a small fighter, because when you zoom in on the photo, you can see two angular wings.

They're movable wings, even. It's a bird. Flabreque 02:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it all that clearly, but the wing and fuselage shape looks vaguely like an F117. Spartan198 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Green Dots

Has anyone else seen the green dots north of the Area 51 starting point on Google Earth, just off the extraterrestrial highway? Makabar 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're alfalfa fields. As those seen on the pictures here [18]. The round shape comes from sprinklers on a rotating arm used to irrigate the field. Flabreque 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, this is me, I just forgot my password. Rabakam 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the technique is called 'center pivot irrigation'. LorenzoB 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right,there is a wikipedia page on it here[19]Superworms 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

area 51

Bold text'Italic text area 51 is creepy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.12 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And? Spartan198 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Art Bell call-in segment

I put the segment back in because I feel it is a relevant part of the history of the folklore of Area 51. I'm working on making it sound more "encyclopedic" however. The YouTube clip is the best I can do currently, as an actual clip from Coast to Coast AM requires a paid subscription. I will keep looking however, for other sources and add them as I locate them. Leandar (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to get some non-Art Bell source that talks about this segment of his show. The audio track that I heard from the Youtube link was obviously faked, what with sirens on the ground being heard from within the supposed Rutan-design aircraft's cockpit, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, the siren's upper and lower pitches remained steady, without any Doppler shift which would have been caused from the movement of the aircraft toward or away from the siren's source. Such a Doppler shift should have been most obvious when the notional pilot was making a difficult evasive turn, that is, if the ground siren were at all audible from the cockpit. What I heard on that Youtube clip was a full-on radio show with characterizations and sound effects. Jeez. The only way this episode of the Bell show can make it into this article is if some journalist wrote about how it actually made news despite its being faked. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't happen to like Art Bell, his show, or the subject in general does not mean you have the right to remove it. You should not modify content in Wikipedia based on your own beliefs and opinions. Your edit has been reverted. --GSK (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you assume a lot. I've never heard of Art Bell, or knowingly heard his show before yesterday. The subject of Area 51 fascinates me. Strike three on assumptions. My position is that the episode is notable if a news story formed because of it. It's not notable by itself. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the section once again. Why is this single Art Bell broadcast important? The answer to that question is the key to its retention within this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One more time I've deleted the section. I have looked for the broadcast's appearance in the popular press but came up empty... perhaps somebody else has an idea of its inclusion in a newspaper article or such. Otherwise, the broadcast fails notability. It HAS appeared in blogs and discussion boards: the abovetopsecret discussion thread here discusses the broadcast including several entries claiming it a hoax. At any rate, I'm still convinced this particular broadcast doesn't measure to our standards for notability. If it didn't make any waves, it doesn't need to be here. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Area 69, Area 52 and Broom Lake

In popular culture, when areas analogous to Area 51 are referred to by a different name such as "Area 52", we must find a mainstream reference comparing its analogous area to Area 51 directly. Writing something like "the analogous area is obviously a take-off on Area 51" is original research; outside observations are required. I managed to find a mainstream reviewer comparing "Hangar 51" and the surrounding area in Indiana Jones to Area 51. Other such refs will be necessary for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas's "Area 69", RollerCoaster Tycoon 3's "Broom Lake" and World of Warcraft's "Area 52". Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All of these worthless "mention in" and "allusion to" in-popular-culture entries should be deleted altogether (as I said a while ago in #Popular culture lists, above). But no-one gave me any backup on that, and I don't feel like fighting the endless battle against them alone. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is only an essay, and a related policy initiative didn't get enough support - so it seems Wikipedia collectively is content that its articles fill up with endless guff about passing mentions of things in The Rugrats or whatever. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in October 2007, I moved the popular culture section of Sonic weaponry to a new page of its own as a step toward eventual deletion. It was pretty darn big; almost half the article. It was dwarfing the serious discussion of real-life weapons and drafting table concepts. Without any action on my part, the page Sonic weaponry in popular culture got AfD'ed in three weeks, then deleted a half a year later. I think we could do this here, though stating the goal baldly as I've just done won't inspire the pop-culture aficionados who like to take part here at Area 51. What the "Sonic weaponry in popular culture" page didn't have going for it was an editor/champion dedicated to making certain all the entries stayed fully referenced, etc. Somebody here could adopt the Area 51 in popular culture article as their own. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)