Talk:Area 51/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Finlay McWalter 18:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: rewrite

message: Wait, isn't the Farm a CIA training facility? - Woodrow 01:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different The Farm, it's Camp Perry Virginia  (not to be confused with Camp Perry in Clinton, OH ) -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 11:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: the farm

message: 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 . A-12 Blackbird did indeed fly in 1962, or thereabouts:
* USS Intrepid Museum (which has an A-12 Blackbird) says 1962: 
* FAS shows A-11 Blackbird flying that year  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)
replies: text: I re-added the A-12 mention, but in a way that hopefully clarifies things. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 12:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A-12 in 1962 - yes! (it's a different A-12)

message: 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)
replies: text: As there seems to be no opposition to this, I've removed the see alsos. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: removing see-alsos

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

message: I removed the endorheic lake category, for this is not a lake. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 20:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed lake category 

message: Notice  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)
thread_title:  SUGGESTED REVISION 

message: 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)
thread_title: Worldwind URLs

message: "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)
thread_title:  Russian satellite pics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Environmental Lawsuit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Offending sentence? See: and .--Arado 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Tacit blue/JSTARS

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Hangar 18 at groom or wright-patterson?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cheshire landing strip

message: 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)
thread_title: New satelite pictures mabye

message: 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)
thread_title: Source of name

message: 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)
thread_title: Minor Point

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Alien interview paragraph? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Removed link to "JANET" interior 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dissapearing external links 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikimapia

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Ridiculous Deletions

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hangar 18, clarified 

message: I think we should be a tad more equivocal about to whom the JANET aircraft are registered. Glen Campbell's list  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)
thread_title: JANET registrations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google Earth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk Page? 

message: 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)
thread_title: History, where is it

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Runways 03 and 09? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Letter Image Deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Area 51 garden? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  video games 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of [[Area51 Computers]] to Other? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other Game References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Papoose Lake 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Janet (airline)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Buildings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Info? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Area 51 Employee 

message: 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)
replies: text: Restored - it was vandalized earlier today, which is why you only saw a few words. Thanks for the note. --Ckatzchatspy 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackbird Programs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Squared? 

message: 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)
replies: text: We don't.  Fixed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably a bird. Flabreque 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The Picture With The Sign And The Cammo Dudes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture lists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: 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)
replies: text: How the hell you know that? Been there? In the restricted areas? 205.240.146.247 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be friendly. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no such things as aliens 

message: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AgNrlEqiB30
71.199.104.170 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of the Google Earth Area 51 Examination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improvement is needed 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Art Bell call-in segment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Area 69, Area 52 and Broom Lake