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.

 

Papoose Lake Installation doesnt exist

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by classified material
You guys kill me! Does it really seem too far fetched to you for there to be underground facilities out there? I mean I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to blend into the desert!


Billions of dollars can build an awful lot! And the tunnel machines are able to do it. I think some of you look too far into these day light satellite images that aren't going to show you anything because they know when satellite images are being taken.



I think you really need to look at the facts here. They might give you a little bit more insight. No its not far fetched that there is an underground base yet Im not going to believe it until I see ANY evidence that one exists, or even find a reason for building one.

Firstly there is no sign of any form of underground facility at Groom Lake, the only thing that points towards it is the anecdote of a proven liar.

Second, if there was an underground base where would all the excavated dirt go? I think people would notice it.

Hiding an underground base is harder than you believe, there have got to be many signs above ground. Such as ventilation shafts, emergency exits, tracks leading towards a concealed entrance and even if you paint concrete or do anything to disguise it into the desert its still going to show up on soviet satellites which use frequencies outside of the visible range.

Billions of dollars do buy alot but there is no point in using it to buy an underground base. It doesnt hide anything! We cant see inside normal hangars so they do just as good a job as an underground base would. The only thing an underground base would conceal is the fact that there is military activity in an area, yet this would be pointless at area 51 as there is already an AF base which continues to be extended.

You say that you cant see anything from satellite images yet thats not true, we can see and identify buildings at the base, we can see the Pave Hawk helicopters, fighter jets and JANET planes too. Not all of us scour them for signs of non-existant underground bases or signs of ET activity, just learning more about the most fascinating air base in America if not the world, is enough.




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
S-4 is real. So is S-1, S-2, S-3. Just because you can't find info on it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Someone questioned why build an underground base, when a normal hanger will work just as well....

Let me tell you. There are devices available that can detect heat, magnetic waves, infrared waves, x-rays, gamma-rays, and all types of different things, even if they are inside of thin buildings like hangars. That could give away secret information of what they are working on inside. Building a base underground or in the side of a mountain gives you many advantages. For instance the dirt and rocks and other earth objects including bits of metal provide a nice insulation that blocks and shields these devices from detecting anything. On top of that, the dirt and rocks and earth are free, and instead of wasting lots of money building hangers lined with lead, they have buildings underground.

Not only that, but being underground also protects the building from the sun, and extremely HOT temperatures the Nevada desert encounters, making it a much cooler area. Instead of wasting money on expensive air conditioning units and the power to run them, you can naturally have the same effect underground. Cold environments are usually mandatory in research buildings, to help prevent spreading of bacteria.

It could also protect it from bombing attacks. More so, being underground and hidden from satellites is a plus. Since Russia was allowed to fly satellites over Area 51, I'm guessing they wanted to hide the important stuff. Also, on research facilities you want a "clean room", believe it or not it is a lot easier to make a perfectly sealed from air, pressurized, room underground than it is above ground. If you need a perfectly clean room for research, you want the room to be air tight, and run on a filtered recirculated air system.

Also, if a UFO was being tested more than it was being flown, you wouldn't need a permanent runway. Especially if the UFO is known to be able to take of vertically.

Anyway, I can go on forever about the advantages of underground bases, but ill stop here.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
S-4 is real. So is S-1, S-2, S-3. Just because you can't find info on it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Do you mean S-4, as in Site 4?

If your talking about Site 4, it is in Palmdale, CA. It the location at Air Force Plant 42 where Northrop builds their advance aircaft, such as the B-2. Site 2 or S-2 is home to part of the Lockheed Skunkworks.

However, the S-4 from the Lazar story is just that, A Story! We looked into the stories of the Papoose Lake installation, but failed to fine ANY evidence to support them.

Tim



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   
There's no proof positive (yet) UFOs exist -- with all the non-proven sightings, crashes and abductions -- does that mean UFOs don't exist? Maybe, Maybe not.

But I think they are real and they are here. Foreign or us from the future or other.. some thing's going on. And from that far back eg ancient paintings, pave scriptures etc.. looking the other way amounts to bending over and saying ouch !!
Papoose, Groom, ElYonke (PR) and a few very bizarre ground level single opening CA basis exist. Some in NY, Mauntak etc.. -- oh yah super secret basis exist both in and outside the United States.

Dallas

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Dallas]

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Dallas]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
S-4 is real. So is S-1, S-2, S-3. Just because you can't find info on it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
...
Anyway, I can go on forever about the advantages of underground bases, but ill stop here.


Im sure you could go forever, and though all your points are totally valid Im still not going to believe in an underground base at Groom or Papoose lake until i see ONE SCRAP of evidence.

Do you have any info or evidence that S-1,2,3 or 4 exist? If you dont is that really denying ignorance? To believe in something with no evidence?


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
On top of that, the dirt and rocks and earth are free, and instead of wasting lots of money building hangers lined with lead, they have buildings underground.


Lets not be ridulous here, we all know that an underground base would ocst much more to build than a standard hangar even if it was lined with lead.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Also, if a UFO was being tested more than it was being flown, you wouldn't need a permanent runway. Especially if the UFO is known to be able to take of vertically.

I think you would still need a runway though, and if not then at least some markings on the lakebed to give the pilot some idea of altituse and perspective. Many aircraft, even when flown by the most experienced pilots, have crashed on landing because of spacial disorientation and I think if they were testing an aircraft, even a VT one, they would need some sort of marked off landing area. Also what aircraft testing can be done indoors?

Your points about having effectively a "satellite-proof" hangar is interesting though, and something I hadnt thought about before. But I do have to question whether such satellites which are known to exist could actually get any useful information through a hangar roof.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Do you mean S-4, as in Site 4?

If your talking about Site 4, it is in Palmdale, CA. It the location at Air Force Plant 42 where Northrop builds their advance aircaft, such as the B-2. Site 2 or S-2 is home to part of the Lockheed Skunkworks.

However, the S-4 from the Lazar story is just that, A Story! We looked into the stories of the Papoose Lake installation, but failed to fine ANY evidence to support them.

Tim


No I don't mean Site 2 and Site 4 in Palmdale, CA. I mean Site 4 in Papoose Lake. Just because your Google search doesn't show any creditable sources, doesn't mean it doesnt exist.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Im sure you could go forever, and though all your points are totally valid Im still not going to believe in an underground base at Groom or Papoose lake until i see ONE SCRAP of evidence.


Well good luck with that, Area 51 used to be considered Non-existent. How do you find evidence of something that was considered non-existent? Friends in the right places. Also, satellite photos show doors and passages that lead underground in Area 51 so they DID do underground work. Although no satellites have picked up any of these doors in Papoose lake.


Originally posted by gfad
Do you have any info or evidence that S-1,2,3 or 4 exist?


I have info, but no evidence.



Originally posted by gfad
Lets not be ridulous here, we all know that an underground base would ocst much more to build than a standard hangar even if it was lined with lead.


Actually, now that I think of it, the cost would probably be exactly the same. Use explosives to do the digging, and use steel and cement to create the outer shell. In the long run, they would save money on the electrical bill, and maintenance.



Originally posted by gfad
I think you would still need a runway though, and if not then at least some markings on the lakebed to give the pilot some idea of altituse and perspective. Many aircraft, even when flown by the most experienced pilots, have crashed on landing because of spacial disorientation and I think if they were testing an aircraft, even a VT one, they would need some sort of marked off landing area. Also what aircraft testing can be done indoors?



From what I understand the sports model UFO had two power settings. The first of which allowed the UFO to never touch the ground and just hover constantly, kind of like a standby mode. So they could test some of the flight indoors, but probably not its maneuvering capabilities. Then when they wanted to fly, they would switch to the more powerful mode to leave the atmosphere. Also, I'm not sure who or what is flying these craft, or if they even fly it much, but I'm certain these pilots have more skill than "most experienced pilots".



Originally posted by gfad
Your points about having effectively a "satellite-proof" hangar is interesting though, and something I hadnt thought about before. But I do have to question whether such satellites which are known to exist could actually get any useful information through a hangar roof.


Well, I didn't specifically mean satellite-proof. It is possible to see Area 51 from mountain/hill tops, and special imaging devices could have been used from these locations. I am aware there are satellites with powerful infrared capabilities that may be able to see hot things through thin materials, but I am not an expert on that subject. I also am not an expert on the different imaging devices available to satellites, but I have heard they are quite powerful.



[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Well good luck with that, Area 51 used to be considered Non-existent. How do you find evidence of something that was considered non-existent? Friends in the right places. Also, satellite photos show doors and passages that lead underground in Area 51 so they DID do underground work. Although no satellites have picked up any of these doors in Papoose lake.


Area 51 was never considered non-existant. The installation at Groom Lake was denied by the military and CIA and not many people knew of its existance except those in the know, yet it has ALWAYS been totally visible from public land.

Ok I also challenge you to post any pics of doors going underground at Area 51. They do not exist.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I have info, but no evidence.


Fancy sharing it with us? Lets deny ignorance together!

I know that just because there is no info on the web it means it doesnt exist but similarly just because you say (and apparently unfoundedly believe) that they exist doesnt mean that they do.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
From what I understand the sports model UFO had two power settings. The first of which allowed the UFO to never touch the ground and just hover constantly, kind of like a standby mode. So they could test some of the flight indoors, but probably not its maneuvering capabilities. Then when they wanted to fly, they would switch to the more powerful mode to leave the atmosphere. Also, I'm not sure who or what is flying these craft, or if they even fly it much, but I'm certain these pilots have more skill than "most experienced pilots".


This is clear science fiction fantasy. Im not sure whether this argument will get anywhere since I wont believe in something until I see some considerable evidence or proof and you accept anecdotal evidence in both those catergories.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by puhatek


"Canada may have a benefit in being dark so much of the winter"

thats just stupid of you..



Ok...can you enlighten (pun intended) instead of insulting me so I get the gist as to why testing in an area with darkness is stupid of me? I'm not a spy plane buff, but if I remember the testing of most top secret aircraft is usually done in the dark. A longer period of darkness would mean a more flexible schedule to test. You would have maybe 8 hours max daylight for most of winter, that leaves 16 hours to fly around in the dark.

I'm not saying that building a base in Alaska or Canada means that it couldn't be seen, because obviously during the limited winter sunlit hours and long summer days it would be obvious to satellites. I'm saying build your plane...fly it up north in the winter and take advantage of the darkness, remoteness, and large area to fly. Come summer you fly/transport it back to Nevada or California.


[edit on 23/8/06 by Atomic]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
No I don't mean Site 2 and Site 4 in Palmdale, CA. I mean Site 4 in Papoose Lake. Just because your Google search doesn't show any creditable sources, doesn't mean it doesnt exist.


Umm, I did much more then google "S-4". I spent hours in the library reading books on Area 51 and secret installations in the desert. I've watch all the documetries on Area 51 I can find, even to the point of buying 4 for my personal collection. I E-mailed George Knapp, the investigative journalist KLATV in Las Vegas, NV. I've analysed both US and Foriegn sattelite Photos of the Papoose Lake area for any evidence of digging or even regular traffic flow in the area such as paths worn from people walking on them, which suggest that there are people in the area on a farily regular basis. I have found Absolutly NOTHING, which suggest that the area is being used or has been used.

I'm a researcher into The Black World and secret government stuff! It is my research that brought me to ATS. While here, I worked on 3 seprate research projects, including one on Area 51/Groom Lake which I lead. During the Groom Lake Project, we looked into the "S-4" story and found nothing. I know better than to go by one source of information. For the future, Please ask before you assume that I didn't do any research!

It's easier to respect someone who questions your information, then someone who rushes to Accuse you of shotty, half-ass work, when they don't have all the facts about what you did!

I do my best to Resect others, and only ask that they respect me enough not to accse me without all the facts.

Tim



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Area 51 was never considered non-existant.

Are you kidding me? It is a well known fact that anytime anyone ever asked the government about Area 51 before Pres. Clintons term, they would say it doesn't exist. When a group of people that tried to sue the government for environmental risks from hazardous waste disposal, the judge told them Area 51 didn't even exist, and dropped the case.

en.wikipedia.org...


The U.S. government does not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the Groom Lake facility


When Pres. Clinton signed a document that exempted the United States Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, from any Federal, State, interstate, or local provision respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that would require the disclosure of classified information to any unauthorized persons. That was the only time any government official acknowledged the existence of the base. Now, these days they don't acknowledge nor deny it. But it WAS once considered non-existent.



Originally posted by gfad
Ok I also challenge you to post any pics of doors going underground at Area 51. They do not exist.


I'm guessing this tunnel entrance is a fragment of my imagination.




Originally posted by gfad
Fancy sharing it with us?


Negative, do your own research.


Originally posted by gfad
This is clear science fiction fantasy. Im not sure whether this argument will get anywhere since I wont believe in something until I see some considerable evidence or proof and you accept anecdotal evidence in both those catergories.


Well, you asked why there are no runways visible at S-4. S-4 has been rumored to have alien space crafts, and if something flies in space, more likely than not it has vertical take off capabilities and doesn't operate like normal human aircraft. So, you have your classic answer. I suggest not asking questions, if you don't want them theoretically answered.


[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Please ask before you assume that I didn't do any research!



Did you ask anyone that works in Area 51?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - trimmed quote

[edit on 25-8-2006 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Did you ask anyone that works in Area 51?


No I haven't! I don't know anyone who works or has ever worked at Groom Lake (Area 51). However, if you know of someone who works there (for real, not just making claims), give me an E-mail address and we'll ask!

Tim



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Are you kidding me? It is a well known fact that anytime anyone ever asked the government about Area 51 before Pres. Clintons term, they would say it doesn't exist. When a group of people that tried to sue the government for environmental risks from hazardous waste disposal, the judge told them Area 51 didn't even exist, and dropped the case.

Do you actually read posts or just the first few words of each paragraph? You have repeated something that I had already stated. When you said "considered non-existant" I assumed you meant assumed by normal people. Just because it was denied by the military doesnt mean that the people thought it was non-existant.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I'm guessing this tunnel entrance is a fragment of my imagination.

I dont think that is a tunnel entrance. It is situated in the boneyard area if the base and could concievably also be a piece of large tubing, section of aircraft fuselage or old unused fuel tank.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Negative, do your own research.

Thats not very helpful. It also sounds like the kind of thing that someone who doesnt actually have any information but would like to believe that they do. Im not saying you are one of those people but you could quickly make sure no one else does by giving us the information that you have.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Well, you asked why there are no runways visible at S-4. S-4 has been rumored to have alien space crafts, and if something flies in space, more likely than not it has vertical take off capabilities and doesn't operate like normal human aircraft. So, you have your classic answer. I suggest not asking questions, if you don't want them theoretically answered.

The fact is alien craft jsut dont exist. I also told you why I thought even if the craft was capable of VT it would still require some ground markings.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
gfad,

"The fact is alien craft jsut dont exist."


No, it is your assumption based on your own thoughts and feelings that alien craft do not exist. There is no facts to prove OR disprove, support or debunk the existence of this type of craft at all.

Papoose lake may or may not exist, alien craft may or may not exist, but there are no hard concrete facts either way.

BUT, if you have proof that completely negates what i have posted, I would be massivley happy to have a look!


Till it is proven either way, the best thing we can all do is to keep a good look out.

My thoughts are along the line of the kwajellan atoll base. Raython are said to be there in force, and their work is rumoured to be the bleeding edge of the blackest black projects.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Innocent until proven guilty.

I think a similar rule can be applied in this situation. I work by the assumption that until something is proven then you can assume that its untrue or doesnt exist.

There has never been any conclusive evidence to support the existance of alien craft, and if they did exist I think some would have surfaced.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Do you actually read posts or just the first few words of each paragraph? You have repeated something that I had already stated. When you said "considered non-existant" I assumed you meant assumed by normal people. Just because it was denied by the military doesnt mean that the people thought it was non-existant.


Yes I do read the post. The only relevant part of your quote about this subject was when you said "Area 51 was never considered non-existent." Why would you assume I meant by normal people? I was originally asking you how you would obtain creditable information from something that was once considered non-existent. Creditable information surely wouldn't come from normal people, it would have to come from a government official or someone who worked on the inside.


Originally posted by gfad
I dont think that is a tunnel entrance.


Maybe you should try thinking then...


Originally posted by gfad
It is situated in the boneyard area if the base and could concievably also be a piece of large tubing, section of aircraft fuselage or old unused fuel tank.


According to Google Earth, that tunnel is 27 feet wide. The worlds largest aircraft a Boeing 747, is only 21 feet. So its not a fuselage, and I never herd of a fuel tank of that size. I think you are correct about the large tubing part, since it is obviously a large tube that is going underground.

As for it being near a so called bone yard area.. It is actually 651 feet away from the center of the bone yard area. Also there is a really noticeable difference in altitude. The bone yard is at the top of the hill, and the tunnel is at the bottom, what a nice position for the entrance of a tunnel. There is a 140 foot difference in altitude, meaning you would have to drive up hill for 651 feet to get to the bone yard area. It's safe to say, if this was a piece of junk, it is really out of place.



On top of that, if you turn on Google Earth Community it will say "tunnel opening". That was submitted by a complete stranger, not me. That would mean 2 vs 1 believe it to be a tunnel opening. I'm pretty sure more than 2 people will think it is a tunnel opening.

It's ok though, since you said doors going underground do not exist in Area 51, and I showed you one that does, I expect nothing less than a wild guess of what it might be.


Originally posted by gfad
Thats not very helpful. It also sounds like the kind of thing that someone who doesnt actually have any information but would like to believe that they do. Im not saying you are one of those people but you could quickly make sure no one else does by giving us the information that you have.


Even if I did share info with you, I can see the future, and you saying "Where is the evidence, if I don't see evidence I wont believe you.". Then completely denying everything. Or you will say:


Originally posted by gfad
until something is proven then you can assume that its untrue or doesnt exist.


Am I right?


Originally posted by gfad
The fact is alien craft jsut dont exist.


It is not a FACT that they don't exist. FACT means something that actually exists; reality; truth. You do not have the truth, nor can you claim to know the truth.


Originally posted by gfad
I also told you why I thought even if the craft was capable of VT it would still require some ground markings.


A huge white, salty, dry lake bed is not enough marking? How do you know they don't set up mobile infrared (not visible by naked eye) marker strobes during flight tests, and the pilots are wearing infrared goggles to see them? Or better yet, GPS?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Yes I do read the post. The only relevant part of your quote about this subject was when you said "Area 51 was never considered non-existent." Why would you assume I meant by normal people? I was originally asking you how you would obtain creditable information from something that was once considered non-existent. Creditable information surely wouldn't come from normal people, it would have to come from a government official or someone who worked on the inside.

That was not the only relevant part of my post, I actually went on to explain why I said that that area 51 was never considered unknown, which I still stand by. Also if you were talking about being considered unknown by military personel it makes your statement even more ludicrous. Just because the military denied it doesnt mean they didnt know it existed, in fact they obviously knew it existed because the Air Force operated and used it.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Maybe you should try thinking then...

According to Google Earth, that tunnel is 27 feet wide. The worlds largest aircraft a Boeing 747, is only 21 feet. So its not a fuselage, and I never herd of a fuel tank of that size. I think you are correct about the large tubing part, since it is obviously a large tube that is going underground.


I do think, I think logically and consider facts and the information I have collected from my research.

Also google earths measurment tool is quite unreliable but when I tried to get a figure on its width I got about 21 ft.


I hardly think it is obvious that its a piece of tubing going underground. In fact I think there are several points that can be gained from the google earth images that show it is an unused, above ground object.



Originally posted by LAES YVAN
On top of that, if you turn on Google Earth Community it will say "tunnel opening". That was submitted by a complete stranger, not me. That would mean 2 vs 1 believe it to be a tunnel opening. I'm pretty sure more than 2 people will think it is a tunnel opening.

This again clearly shows your vague understanding of proof and evidence. Anyone can post a placemark on google earth, that means that just because one person thinks that this object appears to be a tunnel entrance its true? Also its pointless adding up how many people agree with each of us as that doesnt proove anything either.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Even if I did share info with you, I can see the future, and you saying "Where is the evidence, if I don't see evidence I wont believe you.". Then completely denying everything.

This is a discussion forum so lets discuss. Dont make claims that you know information but then refuse to share it with the board as this just detracts from your argument.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
A huge white, salty, dry lake bed is not enough marking?

No its not. A dry lake bed is very smooth and large with no defining features, meaning that a pilot cannot get a sense of perspective or height. Id like to point you towards the wikipedia article for the experimental M2-F2 aircraft. This crashed in 1967 because, quote, "Peterson (a highly experience test pilot) drifted in a cross-wind to an unmarked area of the lakebed where it was very difficult to judge the height over the lakebed because of a lack of the guidance the markers provided on the lakebed runway."

And finally the piece of evidence that i believe blows your argument out of the water, go to the dreamland resort 2005 panorama. I would post the image but its protected. Scroll about half way across the panorama so you are looking at the boneyard and hangars 19-16. Look to the right of the boneyard and there are two white buildings, one unmarked and one marked pistol range. In between these buildings and slightly lower down the hill (as described by you) you can see a khaki green cylindrical tank surrounded by what appears to be scaffolding. This is the same colour and shape as the object you believe to be a tunnel entrance. It is also in the same place. The scaffolding surronding it accounts for the black lines around the object on google earth, they are just shaddows.

This is obviously the object you are calling a tunnel entrance yet it does not merge into the ground, it is just a cylindrical tank. DEBUNKED.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
That was not the only relevant part of my post, I actually went on to explain why I said that that area 51 was never considered unknown, which I still stand by. Also if you were talking about being considered unknown by military personel it makes your statement even more ludicrous. Just because the military denied it doesnt mean they didnt know it existed, in fact they obviously knew it existed because the Air Force operated and used it.


Holy crap buddy, were did you learn to read? Let me simplify the meaning of what I said. The government once considered Area 51 non-existent, meaning if you asked them for information about Area 51 they would reply: "Area 51 doesn't exist", because that is what they were told to say. During Clinton's presidency, that changed. Now if you asked them for information about Area 51, they would say: "No comment", because people knew officially that Area 51 existed, so saying "it doesn't exist" would be a straight lie.

That means, you will not be able to get any creditable evidence about Area 51 and S-4. Is that so frickin hard to understand??


Originally posted by gfad
Also google earths measurement tool is quite unreliable but when I tried to get a figure on its width I got about 21 ft.





Originally posted by gfad
I hardly think it is obvious that its a piece of tubing going underground. In fact I think there are several points that can be gained from the google earth images that show it is an unused, above ground object.


I never ever said this tunnel was used, nor did I claim high traffic. You simply asked to prove a door that goes underground. If anything, the main doors to the underground part of Area 51 are located in other buildings or hangers. This might be a emergancy exit of some sort. Even then, the original conversation was about S-4's underground tunnels. But anyway, here is MY opinion about the object.







Originally posted by gfad
This again clearly shows your vague understanding of proof and evidence. Anyone can post a placemark on google earth, that means that just because one person thinks that this object appears to be a tunnel entrance its true? Also its pointless adding up how many people agree with each of us as that doesn't proove anything either.


This quote here clearly shows your lack of ability to read. I never once claimed the place-mark was "true", nor did I ever imply it was "evidence". I simply pointed out that it was 2 opinions versus 1 opinion. Nothing more.



Originally posted by gfad
This is a discussion forum so lets discuss. Dont make claims that you know information but then refuse to share it with the board as this just detracts from your argument.


You clearly take things out of context, and you don't know how to read, and you pretty much deny all. I hate talking to people that deny all.



Originally posted by gfad
No its not. A dry lake bed is very smooth and large with no defining features, meaning that a pilot cannot get a sense of perspective or height.


Papoose Lake is a dry salt lake. The color of the lake bed is extremely WHITE, which also stands out in the night time. Do you know what a salt lake is? Here, let me show you pictures of dry salt lakes...

Chott El Jerid salt lake


Lake Frome, Used as visual aid for NASA satellite.
www.csiro.au...


I think you get the point.. b.t.w why did you ignore my GPS suggestion? Surely if they were testing alien craft, they would have GPS.




Originally posted by gfad
Id like to point you towards the wikipedia article for the experimental M2-F2 aircraft. This crashed in 1967 because, quote, "Peterson (a highly experience test pilot) drifted in a cross-wind to an unmarked area of the lakebed where it was very difficult to judge the height over the lakebed because of a lack of the guidance the markers provided on the lakebed runway."


If this was such "a highly experienced test pilot", why didn't he record the altitude of the surface of the runway before taking of? I'm certain highly experienced pilots know how to "fly by instrument" when they can't rely on visual confirmation. If he knew the altitude of the surface of the runway, he would be able to check his altimeter to know when he will hit the ground.


Originally posted by gfad
And finally the piece of evidence that i believe blows your argument out of the water.....

This is obviously the object you are calling a tunnel entrance yet it does not merge into the ground, it is just a cylindrical tank.


That doesn't even come close to blowing my argument out of the water. LOL. The picture is so blurry and unclear that you can hardly tell anything. How on earth do you know its "scaffolding"? Can't it be antenna, or power lines, or phone lines? Or do all the buildings behind it have underground phone, power, etc.? Also there is clear signs of earth movement, and digging, probably by a large earth mover, or tractor. Why would they push that big wall of dirt over, just to set an unused tank, or piece of aircraft? Earlier you said:


Originally posted by gfad
if there was an underground base where would all the excavated dirt go?


They clearly just pushed some of it off to the side...



Maybe the "scaffolding" or, power/phone lines, or antenna, is farther away then you think?




Why so far from the bone yard?



Originally posted by gfad
DEBUNKED.


LOL, you can't call something debunked with just YOUR opinion. Good try though dfag.


[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Tell me, where did the Air Force build and test this Tunnel Boring Machine? And why is it almost the same width as the object in Area 51? AND WHY WOULD THE AIR FORCE NEED A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE FOR THE GROUND?



It says they tested it in various areas of Nevada....

www.wealth4freedom.com...



[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join