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]