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.

 

Area51 underground?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I notice here and there (not just ATS, lotsa sites) comments regarding underground structure, possibly containing the 'real' base at area51. When you see any images of the place, there's never anyone around and it seems devoid of life.

IMO, the place is probably just for R&D of really fancy aircraft technologies, maybe more maybe less.

So, if the place really does have some underground superstructure, is there any documented evidence of excavation or major construction at groom lake in the past 60 or so years that it's been in use by the govt.?

I'm pretty curious about this because I have not seen it mentioned previously and if there is some big stuff goin' on underground.




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   


So, if the place really does have some underground superstructure, is there any documented evidence of excavation or major construction at groom lake in the past 60 or so years that it's been in use by the govt.?


Yes, have a look at the 5th panoramic picture there is definately excavation going on there.

www.dreamlandresort.com...

Edit: click on the Area 51 Info&Photos button then on the third link down 'Area 51 Panorama taken from Tikaboo Peak on September 3, 2001'

[edit on 4-8-2005 by GreatAncientWhiteDragon]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
It's only logical that the agency/s in charge of A51 would have transferred most of the base underground. And this would have happened quite a while ago, soon after the base became widley known, I would presume. Even on ATS there waqs discussion concearning strapping a camera to an RC aircraft and overflying the base. It would be that easy, and with all the publicily available aerial and satellite imagery, the base couldn't have even the buildings visible for the world to see.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinrock
So, if the place really does have some underground superstructure, is there any documented evidence of excavation or major construction at Groom Lake in the past 60 or so years that it's been in use by the govt.?


Well, back when we worked on the Groom Lake Research Project, we took a very extensive look at this question. What we found, seems to suggest that there is No MAJOR underground facility there. There ARE underground levels, but nothing close to what you hear about in the roumors. Here are some of the Facts that support this assessment:

*Area 51 is built on a Dry lake bed (Groom Lake). If you've ever been in the desert, you would know that the summer sun has a "bakeing effect" on a wet surface. The packed dirt surface of Groom Lake has developed the consistency of concrete (You could really land a plane on the unpaved lake bed, it's that hard!) Digging into it is very hary and very expensive.

*Groom Lake is in the mountains. There is a layer of solid rock not too far beneath the surface.

*Maps and satellite images of the show NO physical evidence on mining in the area, with the exception of the abandoned Groom Mine, which hasn't been used since the early 1970's.

*The Isolated location of the base makes it possible to hide most things on or near the surface.

Evidence suggest that there might be a few things underground, but nothing big like you are probably thinking of. Also, Remember that the term "underground" isn't always literal, it's sometimes used to refer to something that is very secret. (Think of the stories of the Underground Railroad in the 1860's! It was neither underground, nor was it a railroad. It was a secret network for smuggling freed slaves!)


Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
It's only logical that the agency/s in charge of A51 would have transferred most of the base underground...


Why do you suggest it's "only logical"?

Everyone knows the base is there. Flyovers and satellite
shots currently reveal buildings. Buildings can hide anything
that's top-secret and do it much simpler than underground
structures. Moving experimental planes underground won't
help to hide them. In fact, it would require equipment and
other structures to facilitate the underground construction
and equipment/structures to facilitate the movement of
planes/vehicles/people between the surface and the
underground areas. That equipment and structural
support would be visible on flyovers and satellite shots,
and be harder to 'explain' than simple hangers
and other above ground structures.

Doesn't it seem more logical that they would want the
base to appear to onlookers as simply an airforce base
that does testing of top secret planes?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Over the last 15 years there has been extensive construction of surface facilities at Groom and no evidence of subterranean construction. Why build underground when less expensive surface structures can hide classified projects just as well? People who have worked at Groom at various times over the last 50 years have told me that what you see is what you get. There are no underground labs or hangars.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
there is alot of level's at area 51, i was a union ironworker out of las vegas and they have a crew of worker's who fly janet there everyday for on going project's. most of which aren't cut and cover but are carved out by tunnel boaring machine's. the steel and equipment are brought in by acess shaft's. and the guy's have told me they go quite deep, what u see on the surface, doesn't even scratch what's underneath. lab's vertical assemblly bld's and tunnels that go on and on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gunz




top topics



 
0

log in

join