It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Groom Lake- Here's the Truth!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
They did, but before they did there was a lawsuit brought by workers at the base. That was when that happened.




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Your report makes perfect sense, but there is no reference to "other technologies" that could be
the foundation of much of this research.

Essentially your report indicates that UFO's are merely unidentified research aircraft and nothing more.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
You all want it, You got it! I am Publishing the Main finding of the Area 51/ Groom Lake Research Project. The truth is the truth, sorry if anyone is disappointed. All of the Info Here comes directly from the Research fourm Sources included.

....


Truth? where truth? this is good info but ur realy missing something dont u know what that is ?

Edited by SimonGray to remove big quote.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by SimonGray]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Is NASA involved in some way at area 51 complex?

Also DARPA invented the Internet...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by iris_failsafe
Is NASA involved in some way at area 51 complex?

Also DARPA invented the Internet...


We couldn't find a link to NASA. As I said, there is stuff what we didn't find. This is a summery of what we did find, that seemed to be credible.

Tim



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I have a few comments regarding the Area 51 research project. Anyone with an interest in the subject might want to pay attention. I have been researching the history of the Groom Lake facility (Watertown, Area 51, Det. 3 AFFTC) for more than two decades using thousands of pages of primary source documents (unclassified to formerly Top Secret) and personal interviews (engineers, test pilots, squadron and base commanders, air traffic controllers, security personnel, project managers, etc.)

First of all, regarding SUNTAN:

Although Lockheed received a contract to build four prototypes, they were never actually constructed. The project was cancelled with only a forward fuselage mock-up and a few subscale test articles (wing, fuel tank, etc.) to show for it.

SR-71 - "Deactivated in 1990, the program has recently been revived, some believe because of problems with the Aurora."

The SR-71 was briefly reactivated, then cancelled by line-item veto of the President. The final SR-71 flight was a NASA aircraft and crew at the October 1999 air show at Edwards Air Force Base.

The word "Aurora" has noithing to do with Groom lake or any hypersonic successor to the SR-71. We shouldn't use it a a generic term for such a speculative aircraft. I have no evidence to indicate that any successor nto the SR-71 has ever been built or deployed. There is some extremely cryptic testimony from a former crew chief at Groom suggesting that there was some type of high-speed (possibly hypersonic) one-of-a-kind demonstrator tested in the late 1980s. I have been unable to corroborate this.


B-2 Stealth Bomber:

The B-2 made its first test flight from Palmdale to Edwards in 1988. There were no B-2 airframes at Groom prior to that time. The B-2 was based at Edwards for testing, but every B-2 airframe has flown through the Dynamic Coherent Measurement System (DYCOMS) radar cross-section range at Groom. B-2 technology was developed with the TACIT BLUE aircraft at Groom between 1982 and 1985.


Soviet Migs:

HAVE DOUGHNUT was a test program involving a MiG-21. HAVE DRILL was a MiG-17. Other MiG 17, MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-7, Su-22, etc. were tested under other code names.


TR-3A Black Manta:

We probably shouldn't use this designator. It is speculative and does not conform to known designation systems (please spare me comments about the TR-1). I do not know whether an aircraft of this configuration has been tested, but there have been at least 7 to 11 classified manned aircraft flown at Groom since the mid 1980s that have yet to be unveiled.

In 1985, Frank Birk made the first flight of a "classified technology demonstrator." He won the Bobby Bond Memorial Aviator Award for his work on this project.

Since 1982, Dan Vanderhorst has flown at least seven classified aircraft, described as mostly "one of a kind demonstrators." One was TACIT BLUE. Another had internal weapons bays, suggesting stealth characteritsics (Vanderhorst "holds the altitude record in this aircraft" according to an unclassified biography).

During the last part of a 20-year Air Force career, Doug Benjamin flew four classified aircraft. One of these was Bird of Prey (declassified a few years ago).

In the early to mid 1990s, Dennis Sager commanded the classified flight test squadron at Groom and became the first Air Force pilot to fly the YF-113G, a "classified protoype" that he helped shpard from development to first flight.

During the late 1990s, Joe Lanni flew first flights of two classified prototypes, including the YF-24. (That is not a typo)


Major Player at Groom Lake:

The Groom Lake facility (Detachmnent 3, AFFTC) is operated by the Air Force Flight Test Center as a remote operating location (OL). There are various other government agency (OGA), Department of Defense (DoD) and contractor tenants.

The base commander is a USAF officer (Colonel).


The earliest NASA connection to Groom was the designation of the lakebed as a contingency landing site for the X-15 during the 1960s. It was available during launches from Delamar lake, but never needed as an emergency landing site. The AeroViroment HALSOL UAV (sponsored by the CIA) was tested at Groom in 1983 and transferred to NASA at Edwards nine years later. I have not yet found a direct connection of a NASA project to Groom.


The existence of the Groom Lake facility was never classified:

Initial construction of watertown Airstrip and subsequent improvements were announced to the news media by the Atomic Energy Commission during the 1950s. This included a brief description of the facilities and the fact that the U-2 was operating there. U-2 activities were explained by a cover story about "NACA weather research." The base was mentioned in NACA research reports about the U-2 weather data (which was actually collected on NACA instruments during training flights)

During the 1960s, Area 51 telephone numbers and team sports scores were published in unclassified newsletters by contractors such as Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company (REECo). Area 51 also appeared on numerous unclassified maps for distribution to the press and public.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
An addendum to my previous post.

I followed your link to F-117A and B-2 information and have the following comments:

You state "Quite a commotion was caused in 1988 when an aircraft from the 4450th TFW (Tactical Fighter Wing) crashed on publicly accessible land. The aircraft was an F-117A, but at the time this was denied. The crash scene was cordoned off and the whole affair was hushed-up."

It was 11 July 1986. The airplane was assigned to the 4450th Tactical Group. The incident resulted in a news media frenzy that lasted several weeks.

You also state: "The existence of the Stealth Fighter was finally admitted by the USAF in 1990..."

The first public announcement took place on 11 November 1988. It was front page news the following day. The first released photo (with intentionally poor contrast) appeared on television news programs and in numerous publications.

With regard to B-2 serial numbers:

"...I am convinced that the fiscal year of procurement was 1984. Yes, that's right 1984! What were the USAF doing with a B-2 in 1984? The Air Force publicly announced the B-2 in 1992, eight years later."

Starting in July 1921 (Fiscal Year 1922) a serial number system was adopted based on procurement within each fiscal year (FY). Each serial number consists of a base number corresponding to the last two digits of the FY in which money was used to manufacture the aircraft, and a sequence number indicating the sequential order in which the particular aircraft was ordered within that particular FY. It is important to recognize that the serial number reflects the Fiscal Year in which the order for the aircraft is placed, NOT the year in which it is delivered.

The first B-2 serial number is 82-1066.

Also, the B-2 was rolled out in 1988 (another bit of front page news), not 1992. It was painted in a very dark gray, almost black. Later aircraft received a lighter shade of gray.

"...source confirms that both the F-117A and B-2 were operational many years before any word of their existence reached the public."

True for the F-117A. Not true for the B-2.

"The first F-117A crash occurred in the late 1970's, much to the consternation of the top brass at the time.  The operation to retrieve the wreckage of the airframe was shrouded in secrecy and is not widely documented or known about."

This was a HAVE BLUE stealth technology demonstrator, a predecessor to the F-117A. The first YF-117A flew in June 1981.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
I have a few comments regarding the Area 51 research project. Anyone with an interest in the subject might want to pay attention. I have been researching the history of the Groom Lake facility (Watertown, Area 51, Det. 3 AFFTC) for more than two decades using thousands of pages of primary source documents (unclassified to formerly Top Secret) and personal interviews (engineers, test pilots, squadron and base commanders, air traffic controllers, security personnel, project managers, etc.)


B-2 Stealth Bomber:

The B-2 made its first test flight from Palmdale to Edwards in 1988. There were no B-2 airframes at Groom prior to that time. The B-2 was based at Edwards for testing, but every B-2 airframe has flown through the Dynamic Coherent Measurement System (DYCOMS) radar cross-section range at Groom. B-2 technology was developed with the TACIT BLUE aircraft at Groom between 1982 and 1985.



Did you check out the source I posted on the B-2 at Groom Lake? Also, the Airforce admitts that the B-2 development contract was sign in the early 1980. The one thing about your statment that doesn't make sense is: Why would the Air Force have shown the B-2 to the world before they even tried it out for the first time? Remember the B-2 was a Black Project code named: Senior Ice.

Also, remember the Air Force has lied about stuff before. They really couldn't hide the F-117 because of a crash in the earily 1980's. People didn't know what the F-117 was, but they knew there was something there. Also, do you really think it took 7 years for Northrop to build one plane.

Tim

[edit on 23-8-2005 by ghost]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
The production and flight-test history of the B-2 is well documen ted. Also, I personally know many of the people who were in volved in its development.

There were some fairly accurate artist's concepts of the B-2 released by the Air Force prior to the rollout of AV-1. The airplane's first flight was publicized in advance. Many people waited outside the boundary of Plant 42 in Palmdale to watch the takeoff.

The only B-2-related testing prior to that was TACIT BLUE. That was conducted in great secrecy at Groom. The Northrop chief pilot for that program is a good friend of mine.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The production and flight-test history of the B-2 is well documen ted. Also, I personally know many of the people who were in volved in its development.

There were some fairly accurate artist's concepts of the B-2 released by the Air Force prior to the rollout of AV-1. The airplane's first flight was publicized in advance. Many people waited outside the boundary of Plant 42 in Palmdale to watch the takeoff.


Ok, I stand corrected! Just one more question: Why was the B-2 so public in it's test phase? The Air Force hid the F-117 for years, but they showed to B-2 to the world as sonn as it was ready to fly! Why? I would have thought the B-2 should have been much more secret then the F-117. After all, the B-2 is a more potent weapon.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Tim



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
The F-117 was unveiled after a crash, and before doing daylight test flights. Most of the B-2 flights were done during the daytime hours, so it would have been public anyway, from people taking pictures of it. Not to mention the fact that there is a LOT about the B-2 that is secret in ways that aren't obvious. The general shape of the B-2 is the biggest cause of its stealthiness, and that shape had been public since the late 30s. The F-117 was a radical new design that they didn't want getting out until they had to.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Actually Zaphod58's answer was pretty good. Additionally, there is some good information in the statement of Defense Secretary Harold Brown on 22 August 1980 regarding stealth technology:

"For three years we have successfully maintained the security of this program. This is because of the conscientious efforts of the relatively few people in the executive branch and the legislative branch who were briefed on the activity and of the contractors working on it. However, in the last few months, the circle of people knowledgeable about the program has widened, partly because of the increased size of the effort, and partly because of the debate underway in congress on the new bomber proposals. Regrettably, there have been several leaks about the stealth program in the last few days in the press and television news coverage. In the face of these leaks, I believe that it is not appropriate or creditable for us to deny the existence of this program."

Perhaps more importantly, he added:

"I am gratified that, as yet, none of the most sensitive and significant classified information about the characteristics of this program has been disclosed."

The first flight of the Advanced Technology Bomber was still in the relatively distant future. The F-117A was already overdue for its planned maiden flight (it slippedn entire year). By focusing public attention on the B-2, officials could continue to deny the F-117A. The news media and other researchers inadvertently helped the government by continuing to refer to the speculative "stealth fighter" as the F-19. Government officials could easily deny the exisitence of the F-19 because there was no airplane with that designation.

By the time of the Bakersfield crash in 1986, the official position was still to deny the exisitence of a stealth fighter, but fairly accurate information regarding operations at Tonopah was leaking to the press.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
These may all be facts, but that doesn't mean these are _all_ the facts... =)



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The signal-to-noise ratio on the Internet is pretty bad, but there are some real treasures to be found.

The Dreamland Resort web site is currently the best resource for Area 51 information. The Black Projects section is desperately in need of an update, but the History section is excellent and there are more and better photos and satellite overhead images than I have seen anywhere. Also, they have links to such web sites as Roadrunners Internationale, an organization comprised mostly of people who have actually worked at Area 51.

Some important articles to check out:

www.dreamlandresort.com...

www.dreamlandresort.com...

www.dreamlandresort.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Excellent work guys!


As for a "waste of time", hardly. There is a LOT about Area 51 on the web, but the research project team here at ATS did an excellent job of reporting on the FACTS and also the likely projects and info about the base, separating the wheat from the chaff.

Of course, there could be much more that wasn't uncovered, specifically in regards to possible underground facilities, and more remote sections of the base, etc. that will likely be classified for some time to come.

Interesting note on YF-113G...often in the press, it was reported as the designation for captured Mig 23's, but I think it was simply confusion over the YF113B and YF113E designators (which were the designations for some variants of such Mig 23's)....not sure though (as allegedly it's a Northrop design, and so built by the competition, hehe
....)

If my memory serves, I think the YF-113G had a pretty distinguishing characteristic....it's wing edges resembled triangular teeth. It was a two-seater, and intended to replace the F-111 eventually. I'd have to look into it to see it's status though....(this is all second hand info too, from conversation, so just adding the disclaimer).

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Gazrok is right. The YF-113B and YF-113E are variations of the MiG-23.

Col. Dennis Sager's official Air Force biography stresses, however, that the YF-113G was a "classified prototype" that he helped take from "development to first flight" in the early to mid 1990s. I couldn't get him to give me any hints about the aircraft's configuration as it is still classified. In a vault, there is a photo of Sager posing with the airplane. It will be given to him when it is declassified.

I still don't know anything about the aircraft's manufacturer either. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed martin are still the best candidates, but we shouldn't overlook McDonnell Douglas/Boeing. They did produce the Bird of Prey after all.

I was surprised to learn that there were so many other manned "black" aircraft projects yet to be unveiled. Out of six to eleven aircraft from 1985 through 2004, we only know two designations (YF-113G and YF-24) and no code names. But we know the names of quite a few pilots (although I have only listed a handful).



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The general shape of the B-2 is the biggest cause of its stealthiness, and that shape had been public since the late 30s. The F-117 was a radical new design that they didn't want getting out until they had to.


I did some more digging on the secracy surrounding the B-2 and the F-117. First, let me say, I'm sorry for mixing up my facts on the B-2's History in the origional report! If I confused anyone, I'm truly sorry!

There is another peice to the puzzle as well. The B-2 was concieved as the Advanced Technology Bomber. The ATB was intended to be a peice of the Nuclear Triad for SAC (Ironically, SAC was disbanded before the B-2 was fully operational). The B-2 was going to be used as a Deterrent against war. To be a credible threat, the Russians had to be aware of it's existance to some degree. It capibilities were a closely guarded secret, but not the existance of the aircraft itself.

The F-117, on the other hand, was origionally intended for covert missions, such as providing Air to Ground support for Delta Force! (I have no Idea if it's ever been used for anything like this). In supporting covert operations, the mission of the F-117 would have been a secret.

These two Tidbits on the B-2 and the F-117 might add some prespective on the levels of secracy surrounding each of these programs.

Tim



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
First of all, Shadowhawk, welcome to the board! your input is most welcome!

good post Ghost, you guys did some great research here, i'm not expecting any disclosure on any major projects any time soon though, esspecially if certain rumours are true...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
A great many "researchers" of Area 51 and black projects don't make much progress because they:

1. Assume that all information on the subject is classified and thus unobtainable.

2. Limit their research to the Internet.

The first best thing to do is throw out the first assumption. For one thing, it is simply false. There are vast amounts of information on these subjects that were never classified. You can use this data to build a solid foundation and fill in a lot of blanks. Also, just because something is classified doesn't mean it wont leak.

Secondly, the Internet is useful, but hazardous. Signal to noise ratio does not work in favor of the researcher. One must be very careful to filter out the nuggets from the muck. There are many better resources: unclassified documents, declassified documents, and bona fide sources. Sometimes, all you have to do is ask. (I have been researching Area 51 for over 20 years, and I have only filed two FOIA requests.)



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
A great many "researchers" of Area 51 and black projects don't make much progress because they:

2. Limit their research to the Internet.


Well, we didn't limit ourselves to the Internet. Some of our Other sources included:

Books
Magazines
Journal
Maps
Several FOIA requests put in by FredT
Videos
TV documentries
Documents on Programs Known to have been at the base (EX:U-2, A-12)
Eye witness reports
Old Achive document

As you can see we tried to get every source we could think of. I know there is probably more out there, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to look.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join