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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Holy crap buddy, were did you learn to read?...

Is that so frickin hard to understand??...

Good try though dfag....

Ah good old insults and agression, the last resort of a failing argument. Anyone who has tried to talk reason and logic to conspiracy nuts on ATS has seen this a million times.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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.

Do you still not get it. Just because someone denies something doesnt mean they think it is non-existant, in fact the exact opposite is true.

If someone knows something but chooses to keep it secret doesnt mean they think its not true. They know its true but are lying about it!


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Clearly defined edge?? LOL psp
Clearly defined edge?? More like clearly defined blending of dirt and object.

Theres no point in using any of the fancy photoshop filters on this screen capture as the google earth image is already processed and quite pixelated already. But by changing the brightness and contrast of the image you can see an above ground cylindrical object with some kind of support stucture. You can also see some sort of glare coming off the back edge exagerated by the processing the image has been through already which goes some way to explain why it looks blended into the ground.



The points that you have labelled "blending starts here" "and ends here" are the two edges of the grid of slightly pixelated squares.

Secondly the black lines continue on baclwards because they are poles and the view is not from directly vertically above. In fact you can tell which side we are viewing from because we can see one open end of the pipe and tis correlates with the view of the scaffolding.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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.

If you werent trying to use it as proof or evidence then why did you bother to say it in a discussion of your flawed argument?


Originally posted by LAES YVAN

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...

I think you get the point..

No I dont get the point!

I know exactly what a dry lakebed is. I know its extremely white and this supports my point that it is so smooth and mono-coloured that it can easily lead to spacial disorientation and the crashing of aircraft. Showing those pictures only exagerates how wrong you are, they both show a very smooth surface with no defining features that extends as far as the eye can see.
Here is a website that describes how "Spatial disorientation...can be prevented only by visual reference to reliable, fixed points on the ground" and also "Featureless Terrain Illusion: A pilot landing in a featureless area such as a dry lake bed or desert, will tend to fly a lower than normal approach, thinking he/she is to high."


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
b.t.w why did you ignore my GPS suggestion? Surely if they were testing alien craft, they would have GPS.

I ignored it because its ludicrous. Why would an alien spacecraft be built with instruments that are dependant on a human satellite system? Even if the AF had fitted the craft with GPS it doesnt help the dire situation you are in if you cant work out where you are or how high you are from visual cues.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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.

I cant believe you would sare to question the ability of Bruce Peterson, a highly skilled test pilot. Try reading his wikipedia biography. It says how he logged over 6000 flight hours in nearly 70 different aircraft, some of those prototypes. It also details the fact that he was awarded the Tony LeVier flight test safety award and features on the Lancaster, California Aerospace Walk of Honor. After you've read that, read some books about basic flight, you might learn something.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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?

Yes the ground has been flattened slightly to put the tank on but that "wall of dirt" has always been there. On this satellite photo from 1968 you can see that feature before there was any major building in the area.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Maybe the "scaffolding" or, power/phone lines, or antenna, is farther away then you think?

Why so far from the bone yard?

You can see one of the scaffolding poles casting a shadow onto the side of the tank.

I dont know why its so far from the boneyard, thats just where they chose to put that tank!

[edit on 26/8/06 by gfad]




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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?

I dont know, but how do you know its the same width as the tank at area 51?

Your source website doesnt seem to be very reliable or contain much information. It says Area 51 is part of the Nevada Test Site which it is not, its actually separate. Im not sure of the existance of nuclear powered TBMs which can melt rock either!

I think its time we got some input from other posters on this topic. Can anyone else see a tank which is also visible in the dreamland resort panorama or is it just me?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
OK I have got another picture on dreamland resort which shows the tank. Unfortunately it doesnt show the other end of it but it does show an end in dark shadow similar to the ends of the hangars also in the picture.

You can see the picture here.

Again on this picture you can see that it does not merge into the hill and you can see the box like scaffolding structure around the tank.

You can also see the tank in :this photo. Its a bit grainy but you can see the tank. I found this through dreamland resort too.

Again is it just me that can see this? :lol

[edit on 26/8/06 by gfad]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Ah good old insults and agression, the last resort of a failing argument. Anyone who has tried to talk reason and logic to conspiracy nuts on ATS has seen this a million times.


Opps the dfag part was a spelling mistake, I meant gfad.

So I'm a conspiracy nut? And that makes you a close minded person in denial right?

Actually my argument holds way more water than yours.. you are all over the place.. first you say aircraft fuselage, then fuel tank, then scaffolding.. .. it keeps going and going and going.. whats next? Is it shamoos old swim tank? A special piece of the Titanic? Are you going to say its an upside down half pipe that Area 51 employees flip over and skateboard on, during free time? You close minded people in denial can never make up their mind, and when they are proven wrong they just change their story again. Or think of some wild claim, that we will have to spend 100 hours disproving. Then it starts all over again...


Originally posted by gfad
Do you still not get it. Just because someone denies something doesnt mean they think it is non-existant, in fact the exact opposite is true. If someone knows something but chooses to keep it secret doesnt mean they think its not true. They know its true but are lying about it!


MAN! SERIOUSLY! It is YOU that doesn't get it! Even after I made it completely clear. You are ridiculous man! For the third damn time I will have to explain to you what I meant...
You said this:


I'm still not going to believe in an underground base at Groom or Papoose lake until i see ONE SCRAP of evidence.

I said this:


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?

That means, if you asked someone in the government about underground bases in Area 51, they will tell you "Area 51 doesn't exist". Because they are told to say that to you. They know Area 51 exists, but they are told to say that to you. Once again, they know Area 51 exists, but they are told to say that to you. Once more, they know Area 51 exists, but they are told to say that to you. I don't think you got it that time, either... So what happens when you ask for ONE SCRAP of Area 51 evidence from the government? Fill in the blank... Area 51 doesn't _______.


Originally posted by gfad
Theres no point in using any of the fancy photoshop filters on this screen capture as the google earth image is already processed and quite pixelated already. But by changing the brightness and contrast of the image you can see an above ground cylindrical object with some kind of support stucture. You can also see some sort of glare coming off the back edge exagerated by the processing the image has been through already which goes some way to explain why it looks blended into the ground.


LOL, re-read that quote buddy. I'm seriously laughing out loud at you. First you say there is no point in filters, then you continue to say changing the brightness and contrast will support your claims... FUNNY STUFF MAN. B.T.W. I used Paint Shop Pro X. They have a tool called the "EDGE FINDER". It will outline obvious solid lines in the picture. The fact that it didn't find any solid lines on a spot you said was "clearly defined", is just hilarious. I can't believe you even said it had a solid line, when it clearly shows dirt blending on top of the tunnel.

B.T.W. Thanks for this picture, it proves further that the dirt is blending on top of the tunnel.




Originally posted by gfad
The points that you have labelled "blending starts here" "and ends here" are the two edges of the grid of slightly pixelated squares.


Huh? Actually, I was pointing the transition from one color to the next. You take the color of the tunnel, and the color of the dirt far behind it, and it perfectly fades together between the start and end points I marked.


Originally posted by gfad
Secondly the black lines continue on baclwards because they are poles and the view is not from directly vertically above. In fact you can tell which side we are viewing from because we can see one open end of the pipe and tis correlates with the view of the scaffolding.


See, your perspective is wrong. The sun is south and slightly west. That is creating a shadow that you think is a full pipe. Lets get this clear, only HALF of the pipe is above ground. The part that you think is the lower half, is actually the shadow.


Originally posted by gfad
If you werent trying to use it as proof or evidence then why did you bother to say it in a discussion of your flawed argument?


Flawed argument? You are standing here thinking this is a full pipe above ground, because you can't tell the difference between shadow and structure. I simply implied that 2 opinions vs 1 opinion usually means something..



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
No I dont get the point!
I know exactly what a dry lakebed is.


Obviously you ahve no clue. I am talking about a dry SALT lake. It is really really white. If you were 10,000 feet in the air at night, you would see it. If the moon is shining, you will still see it. This will get you in the "area" of your landing. Now all you need to do is keep an eye on your altimeter (altitude). If you know the altitude of ground levvel of the lake, you will not crash into it. GOT IT NOW?




Originally posted by gfad

I ignored it because its ludicrous. Why would an alien spacecraft be built with instruments that are dependant on a human satellite system? Even if the AF had fitted the craft with GPS it doesnt help the dire situation you are in if you cant work out where you are or how high you are from visual cues.


New age aircraft have GPS in them. There are also hand held GPS avalible. This can get you in the area of the earth you need to be. Now all you need to do is look at your altimeter. I already explained this.. but you insist on going, and going, and going, and going.....



Originally posted by gfad
I cant believe you would sare to question the ability of Bruce Peterson, a highly skilled test pilot.


Well maybe you should believe it, because I just did. Crashing an aircraft does not mean you are a good pilot. I can't believe he didn't use his instruments to help him land.... thats what good pilots are supposed to do...




Originally posted by gfad
Yes the ground has been flattened slightly to put the tank on but that "wall of dirt" has always been there. On this satellite photo from 1968 you can see that feature before there was any major building in the area.


Link is broken. But, are you now claiming you know why they dirt is there? I think you are jsut B.Sing your way through this as best you can...


Originally posted by gfad
You can see one of the scaffolding poles casting a shadow onto the side of the tank.


You still don't have evidence that it si scaffolding. you are basing this claim on 1 line of pixels..


Originally posted by gfad
I dont know why its so far from the boneyard, thats just where they chose to put that tank!


Of course you don't know... you don't know anything, you just claim you do.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I dont know, but how do you know its the same width as the tank at area 51?


You can get a good idea of the size by using simple photo measuring techniques on this photo.





Originally posted by gfad
I think its time we got some input from other posters on this topic. Can anyone else see a tank which is also visible in the dreamland resort panorama or is it just me?


IT IS JUST YOU! You are getting confused by the shadows. You think it is a full pipe, when it is actually HALF a pipe, half buried in the ground.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
OK I have got another picture on dreamland resort which shows the tank. Unfortunately it doesnt show the other end of it but it does show an end in dark shadow similar to the ends of the hangars also in the picture.

You can see the picture here.



Have you ever stopped to think that "dark shadow" is actually the opening of the tunnel? Abnd not the side of a tank? Its dark because its an opening, you can walk in.



Originally posted by gfad

You can also see the tank in :this photo. Its a bit grainy but you can see the tank. I found this through dreamland resort too.


Broken link..



Originally posted by gfad
Again is it just me that can see this? :lol


Yes it is JUST YOU.


Look...



The pipe keeps it shape, but changes color because some of the dirt is on top of the pipe.

The sun is south, so the shadow makes it look like a full pipe, when it is only half. The half of pipe is making a half shadow in the opposite direction.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Im all for the theory of the tunnel into the ground. Why? because at area 51 I have found a picture of a large pool of water surrounded by trees. In the picture (Google earth) you can see two plumes of water being ejected into the pool and creating the typical foamed surface of a water on water impact.

This pool is far away from the base, and the water is coming from under the cover of trees. Some one went to alot of work to camouflage this water efflux, but for some freaky reason google earth seems to have captured it in process.

So - until some one can prove otherwise, i am staying with my belief that there is an underground system at area 51.

As for papoose lake, well I have seen some good camouflage jobs in my time of bases - I have even seen a base in saudi where the concrete was sand coloured. As for them landing with no markers that you cannot see, well thats what NVG systems and IR strobes are for. Have IR, have remote landing spot. So ill reserve opinion to if and why it is there.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
You know what gfad, lets start completely over... starting now...



===========BACK ON SUBJECT============




Originally posted by gfad

I think the best question is WHY? Why would you spend millions if not billions of dollars on building a brand new base into the mountain (without a runway BTW) for testing "alien craft" when there is a perfectly good base just a few miles away designed especially for testing secret aircraft.

The same applies to people talking about underground bases ... why build an underground base to hide aircraft when normal buildings and hangars do it just as well at a fraction of the cost.



Here is a question for you... why would the US AIR FORCE spend 13 million on this:




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
To dig deep tunnels into rocks and such like to create bases and tunnels underground.

And that piccies ages old, so the techs probably way ahead of that now....But cheers for the piccie 'cause I havent seen it for a while.


Oh and Timothy Goods book 'alien bases' goes into the subject of them having underground bases world wide to hide and test stuff. A great read by the way.

Oh and it has one strange chapter about a UFO, retro fitted with earth engines underneath witnesses say it was a large deep black flying triangle.




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Actually my argument holds way more water than yours.. you are all over the place.. first you say aircraft fuselage, then fuel tank, then scaffolding.. .. it keeps going and going and going.. whats next? Is it shamoos old swim tank? A special piece of the Titanic? Are you going to say its an upside down half pipe that Area 51 employees flip over and skateboard on, during free time?

V funny. At first I said it was an aircraft fuselage or a fuel tank, two objects which appear very similar (except obviously one has an open end and one has a closed one). I then saw that there was scaffolding around it. I didnt say it wasnt a tank or fuselage, I said it was a tank or fuselage with scaffolding around it. I think you known perfectly well that thats what I said.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
MAN! SERIOUSLY! It is YOU that doesn't get it! Even after I made it completely clear. You are ridiculous man! For the third damn time I will have to explain to you what I meant...

I dont think this argument is going anywhere since we are apparently talking a different language! Just because someone denies something is true doesnt mean they think it doesnt exist.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
LOL, re-read that quote buddy. I'm seriously laughing out loud at you. First you say there is no point in filters, then you continue to say changing the brightness and contrast will support your claims... FUNNY STUFF MAN. B.T.W. I used Paint Shop Pro X. They have a tool called the "EDGE FINDER". It will outline obvious solid lines in the picture. The fact that it didn't find any solid lines on a spot you said was "clearly defined", is just hilarious. I can't believe you even said it had a solid line, when it clearly shows dirt blending on top of the tunnel.

Firstly Im not your buddy, in fact I find you quite obnoxious. But I thought you might pick up on that. It shows that just because you can afford Paint Shop Pro does make you an actual Pro. Applying a filter like find edges or the like loses data from the original image by rendering new colours and lines, where brightness and contrast are features which acn be introduced to an image by the camera and changing those doesnt lose very much information.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Obviously you ahve no clue. I am talking about a dry salt lake. It is really really white. If you were 10,000 feet in the air at night, you would see it. If the moon is shining, you will still see it. This will get you in the "area" of your landing. Now all you need to do is keep an eye on your altimeter (altitude). If you know the altitude of ground levvel of the lake, you will not crash into it. GOT IT NOW?

I do have a clue. I know exactly what a dry salt lake is. Im not saying you cant see it from a very high altitude but when you are on an approach it can be difficult as was explained in the link I gave you. Did you read that?


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Well maybe you should believe it, because I just did. Crashing an aircraft does not mean you are a good pilot. I can't believe he didn't use his instruments to help him land.... thats what good pilots are supposed to do...

From the ignorance you are showing in that quote I doubt that you have clocked no where near 6000 flight hours, in fact I doubt whether you have ever clocked a single flight hour. Have you ever been in a cockpit? And no a PC flight simulator doesnt count.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Of course you don't know... you don't know anything, you just claim you do.

Neither do you. You seem to think you have contacts etc. but refuse to say who they are or where you get your "special" information.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by gfad
I think its time we got some input from other posters on this topic. Can anyone else see a tank which is also visible in the dreamland resort panorama or is it just me?


IT IS JUST YOU! You are getting confused by the shadows. You think it is a full pipe, when it is actually HALF a pipe, half buried in the ground.

Hang on ... no one has spoken out to support you either! Its ONLY YOU who thinks its a tunnel except of course for the guy who posted a placemark on google earth without any supporting argument or discussion.

Both those links still work for me.



There is a montage of four photos of the same object. Unfortunately some of the end of the tank of obscured in 3 of them by the hill you can see in the satellite photo.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I'm going to just ignore everything you posted above, since you clearly lack a brain. I'm starting to think your native language isn't English to, since you clearly lack the ability to comprehend what I'm saying.

But I will comment on this...


Originally posted by gfad
From the ignorance you are showing in that quote I doubt that you have clocked no where near 6000 flight hours, in fact I doubt whether you have ever clocked a single flight hour. Have you ever been in a cockpit? And no a PC flight simulator doesnt count.


Actually, I have clocked 121 hours in a helicopter. It has been my life long goal to get my helicopter pilots license. So I joined Silver State Helicopters flight training.

Also during my 3 week Basic Parachute Training in BUD\S training in the Navy, I probably logged 200 hours flying in a plane. With probably 250 sky dives, mostly at night, with night vision goggles.







Originally posted by gfad
There is a montage of four photos of the same object. Unfortunately some of the end of the tank of obscured in 3 of them by the hill you can see in the satellite photo.


Geee, I wonder why 3 of the picture are "obscured by the hill" in the back. MAYBE BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING INTO THE HILL.

The one that supposedly isn't obscured, actually is, by a pole, antenna, power line, or phone line, or "scaffolding". But since it helps your claims, you think it isn't obscured, how convenient.

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



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I'm going to just ignore everything you posted above, since you clearly lack a brain. I'm starting to think your native language isn't English to, since you clearly lack the ability to comprehend what I'm saying.

Geee, I wonder why 3 of the picture are "obscured by the hill" in the back. MAYBE BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING INTO THE HILL.

Speechless? No Im just kidding.

Im still thoroughly stand by all my opinions. I really believe that this is just not a tunnel but it will be nice to get back onto topic.

3 of them are obscurred by the hill beause they are taken from two view points with similar perspectives of Area 51. Anyone who has done their research on this topic knows about the lack of viewpoints.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   


Speechless? No Im just kidding.


Actually, I think you are high on drugs, because you somehow don't understand me. I gave up on you, because anything I say will turn into a big loop. For example:


Originally posted by gfad
I dont think this argument is going anywhere since we are apparently talking a different language! Just because someone denies something is true doesnt mean they think it doesnt exist.


6 Posts later and you STILL do not understand me... I gave up... It's like teaching a monkey how to drive a car or something.. just keep going in circles.


gfad .. lets get this straight... Do you think its a full pipe, or a half pipe?


Also.. take a look at this tunnel boring machine...
www.mta.net...


They will carve 21-foot diameter tunnels and install pre-cast concrete tunnel liners.


21 foot, is about the same size as object in Area 51 that you say is a tank, and I say is an underground tunnel opening..

That TBM is about the same size as the Air Force one.



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



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I believe it to be a fully cylindrical object, like a diesel tank or something of that sort.

I thought that object was 21ft and you said NO its 27 ft. Surely the AF would be able to get a custom one also.

You know what I find your comments absolutely ridiculous since I feel the same about you. Keep saying the same things like talking about dry salt lakes and you go on to explain what a dry salt lake is and then give photos that fully support my points. I think you are quite obnoxious.

[edit on 26/8/06 by gfad]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I believe it to be a fully cylindrical object, like a diesel tank or something of that sort.


The object is hollow, and has a huge opening in the front. Thats why ALL photos show a black shadow on the front. All pictures show it going into the ground on the other end. It is a tunnel.


Originally posted by gfad
I thought that object was 21ft and you said NO its 27 ft. Surely the AF would be able to get a custom one also.


The AF does have a custom one, they built it in a "Nevada Test Site". I was simply comparing both TBM's with the picture of people standing next to it...

Comparing this picture:


With this picture:


This red one digs 21 feet wide.




Originally posted by gfad
You know what I find your comments absolutely ridiculous since I feel the same about you. Keep saying the same things like talking about dry salt lakes and you go on to explain what a dry salt lake is and then give photos that fully support my points. I think you are quite obnoxious.


I actually thought some of your comments were so stupid, that you were actually joking, purposely trying to make this whole conversation go in a circle. As it stands you STILL are doing it. You still don't understand what I was talking about, and I believe you didn't even read it, this is really damn ridiculous.

This was my claim about the dry salt lake....

If you are 10,000 feet in the air, AT NIGHT, and you need to quickly find your landing zone, a pure white dry salt lake would be VERY easy to see from that altitude. Especially with small moon lighting. That would give you a very good idea of where your landing zone is. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT LANDING, USING THIS VISUAL.. I only said this would be a great way to find your way back. Then you use your flight instruments to land..

Your claim is this...

During landing, you wouldn't be able to detect your altitude by looking at the lake bed.


Your claim is weak. Since landing lights on the aircraft would give you a great idea of your altitude when it shines on the lake. Plus, a skilled pilot would know the altitude of his landing zone, so he can watch his altimeter and know when he will touch down.

The problem is, you are thinking in terms of a forward flying airplane. I am thinking in terms of a helicopter, or VTOL aircraft. If you know your altitude, and LZ altitude in a VTOL, you will never crash while landing unless your aren't level.



One last note... Bruce Peterson didn't crash in a dry SALT lake, he crash in a regular dry lake.


Anyway... I'm done with you... I don't know why I didn't look before, but I just found out you were from the UK. I now know your intentions.





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



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Thats why ALL photos show a black shadow on the front. All pictures show it going into the ground on the other end. It is a tunnel.

Actually all the photos show a shadow at that end because the panoramas have to be taken first thing in the morning to eleminate heat haze so the sun is in the same place on each of those pics.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
This was my claim about the dry salt lake....

If you are 10,000 feet in the air, AT NIGHT, and you need to quickly find your landing zone, a pure white dry salt lake would be VERY easy to see from that altitude. Especially with small moon lighting. That would give you a very good idea of where your landing zone is. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT LANDING, USING THIS VISUAL.. I only said this would be a great way to find your way back. Then you use your flight instruments to land..

Your claim is this...

During landing, you wouldn't be able to detect your altitude by looking at the lake bed.

Your claim is weak. Since landing lights on the aircraft would give you a great idea of your altitude when it shines on the lake. Plus, a skilled pilot would know the altitude of his landing zone, so he can watch his altimeter and know when he will touch down.

Now it is you who is either lying or mistaken. I was the first one to mention the lakebed situation NOT YOU when I said something along the lines of "even if craft were taking off from the lakebed they would need markings to guage their height".

I have given a source to show this is true and I have also given a source that shows that one of the most experienced Northrop test pilots fell foul of this.

You are yet to give a valid argument against this.

You then went on to explain to me what a dry salt lake is even though I already knew. And started talking about looking at it from a great height and how luminous it is during moonlight hours. These points had nothing to do with what I was talking about and bear no relation to the factual sources I posted.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Anyway... I'm done with you... I don't know why I didn't look before, but I just found out you were from the UK. I now know your intentions.


I dont really know what you mean by this but you are clearly being racist and even more obnoxious than you were earlier. If you cant compete with a real factual argument supported by real sources then dont post. Dont try and vindicate yourself with preconceptions and prejudices.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
One last note... Bruce Peterson didn't crash in a dry SALT lake, he crash in a regular dry lake.


WRONG The M2-F2 crashed on the dry salt lakebed of Rogers Lake at Edwards Air Force Base.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I dont really know what you mean by this but you are clearly being racist and even more obnoxious than you were earlier. If you cant compete with a real factual argument supported by real sources then dont post. Dont try and vindicate yourself with preconceptions and prejudices.


Racist?? Do you even know what a race is? It has nothing to do with where you live.

It means I'm done with your "Mood: Skeptical"... You are the type that does nothing but disagrees, and them makes some wild excuse.. It's like you are jealous the USA has a secret underground base, and you doing your best to deny it has one, to make your United Kingdom feel more powerful.

You say a door to a tunnel underground doesn't exist in Area 51. Then I show you a tunnel opening that does. A tunnel opening that you have never seen before, so your first guess is "oh its a piece of junk in the bone yard, oh its a piece of large tubing, oh its a section of aircraft fuselage, or old unused fuel tank." Shooting guesses out of your ass left and right. God forbid, there is actually an underground tunnel, in one of the most secret bases of all the world!


Then I give you proof, the US AIR FORCE has their very own 13 million dollar Tunnel Boring Machine, and you still think there is no underground bases.

What proof do you need? What proof are you looking for? It is right here, in front of your face:




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
WRONG The M2-F2 crashed on the dry salt lakebed of Rogers Lake at Edwards Air Force Base.


Wow you are finaly correct for once.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join