Groom Lake is a dry lake.[1] Also described as a salt flat,[2] it is located in Nevada, and used for runways of the Nellis Bombing Range Test Site airport (KXTA).[3] Part of the Area 51USAF installation, it lies at an elevation of 4,409 ft (1,344 m)[4] and is approximately 3.7 miles (6.0 km) from north to south and 3 miles (4.8 km) from east to west at its widest point, and is approximately 11.3 miles in circumference.[5] Located within the namesake Groom Lake Valley portion of the Tonopah Basin, the lake is 25 mi (40 km) south of Rachel, Nevada.[5]
The nearest publicly accessible vantage point is Tikaboo Peak, 26 miles to the east. There were two closer vantage points, dubbed 'Freedom Ridge' and 'White Sides', but they were closed to public access in 1995 to prevent people from taking images of the installation.[6]
History[edit]
Lead and silver were discovered in the southern part of the Groom Range in 1864,[7] and the English Groome Lead Mines Limited company financed the Conception Mines in the 1870s, giving the district its name (nearby mines included Maria, Willow and White Lake). The mining claims in Groom were acquired by J. B. Osborne and partners and patented in 1876, and Osborne's son acquired the interests in the 1890s.[8] The claims were proved in 1916 when two companies began working their mines; that work continued until 1918, and resuming after World War II until the early 1950s.[8]
References[edit]
^Annie Jacobsen (May 17, 2011). Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base. Little, Brown. p. 7. ISBN978-0-316-19385-6.
^Leiby, Richard (August 16, 2013). 'Government officially acknowledges existence of Area 51, but not the UFOs'. Washington Post. Retrieved December 25, 2017.
^Marsh, Alton K. (January 10, 2008). 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Area 51 Gets Airport Identifier'. AOPA. Maryland. Retrieved March 6, 2019. Weinberger, Sharon (January 18, 2018). 'Area 51's New Name: 'Homey Airport''. Wired. New York. Retrieved March 6, 2019.
^'Groom Lake (GNIS code 840824)'. Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved January 11, 2015.
^ abDREAMLAND: Fifty Years of Secret Flight Testing in Nevada By Peter W. Merlin
^'Freedom Ridge and Roadblock Canyon'. Dreamland Resort.
^Mineral resources of the Pahranagat Range 30' by 60' quadrangleArchived April 15, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Joseph V. Tingley, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, 1989, retrieved June 11, 2010
^ ab'A Guide to the Records of The Groom Mining District Collection No. 99-19'. University of Nevada, Reno. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
Coordinates: 37°16′N115°48′W / 37.267°N 115.800°W
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groom_Lake_(salt_flat)&oldid=903491521'
< Talk:Area 51
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
17Ridiculous Deletions
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 NorthropTacit 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:[1] and [2].--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 [3]. 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:
Solar panel controller diy. Support me for more videos:Previous video:DIY Power Logger:Facebook:Twitter:In this episode of Electronic Basics I will show you how solar panels are wired up, why bypass and blocking diodes are necessary when working with them and how we can get the most power out of them. At the end I will also show you how MPPT and PWM charge controller can use a solar panel to charge up a battery.Music:2011 Lookalike by BartlebeatsKilling Time, Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)You want to support my videos?You can browse and buy tools&materials from my Amazon Store.
There are many large facilities belonging to NASA/Air Force/CIA/White House, etc. with the same level of security protection (including taking out satellite pics from TerraServer or not allowing them in the first place).
All facts included in the article are taken out of context and in reality the security is quite lax, access limitations are tolerable and you can even book a guided tour if you ask nice.
The measures taken at Area 51 are special. In all other places there is much more transparency and openness.
If the option 3 is correct, we have a further choice - what is the reason for these measures. One possibility is that they are taken only because all American wackos and tin-foil heads try to infiltrate this facility, preventing boring but useful work on testing toxic paint used on aircraft chassis or something. Another possibility is that the nature of the work warrants the secrecy, i.e. the government is doing something as exciting as studying UFOs and aliens (or something real, but no less 'exciting' like bioweapons).
So does anyone know how the security measures compare with other government facilities. Paranoid 11:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most of the things you mention in point 1 are surprisingly insecure. NASA Ames is beside a freeway, protected by a chainlink fence (no guard towers, dogs, etc.). A few years ago someone managed to sit right outside the CIA gates and shoot a bunch of people with a rifle (dissapointingly, men in black did not immediately spring from the bushes). Edwards AFB doesn't even have a fence for much of its perimeter. Even the whitehouse just has a rather old fence. The actually secure parts of all of these facilities is really very small (the insides of buildings, mostly). And Area 51 really isn't that secure itself. It doesn't have a fence or guard towers, and a few years ago some Greenpeace activists, heading for Yucca flats, walked within a couple of miles and camped overnight at Papoose lake (supposed site of alien stuff at S-1); they didn't get picked up until they got sick of walking on the playa and walked down a road. Compared with other very very large places (and it is very large - you could fit several major cities into the valley) like air bases it is unusually secure. The security measures (as described in the article) overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that Groom is a nice quiet place for the Airforce to test its secret planes without them appearing in the papers. Stuff like bioweapons and death rays really don't need such a huge range, and most sinister plots and schemes can easily be conducted indoors anyway. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
Groom Lake Nevada Zip Code
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..
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)
Groom Lake Nevada
Ridiculous Deletions
Please explain why, in detail, the following deletions were effected:
External links
-
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Area 51.
- *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°14′25″N115°49′07″W / 37.240203°N 115.818558°WCoordinates: 37°14′25″N115°49′07″W / 37.240203°N 115.818558°W
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 [4] 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
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.htmlA 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. <
Jobs At Groom Lake Nevada
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.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Area_51/Archive3&oldid=351819904'