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.

 

Sandia secret base: Does it really exist?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
And another thing .... wouldnt this massive scar show up on satellite imagery? We have a large catelogue of Groom Lake images but I bet if someone took the time to dig out all the images of that non descript mountain ridge they wouldnt see any scar or construction work.



GFAD, what are you betting on here? That I am not telling the truth as to what I saw or that the image has been photoshopped? Or what? Just wanted to be clear here. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
John:

Is the installation called Sandia, or does Sandia run the installation for another governmental entity?

For example, Sandia National Labs is owned by DOE, but is also called Sandia. Everyone just calls it "Sandia" too, although properly it's not the Sandia corporation nor is it owned by them.

Also Sandia IS LM, and there's a lot of Sandia/LockMar/Skunkworks back and forth.



Tom,

For many years now, very classified projects have been given common names used for other programs, projects and facilities. The reason for this is so that its accidental mention wouldn't trigger any suspicion. For instance the inadvertant mention of Sandia would immediately conjure up Sandia Corp. in a few, Sandia Mt. in a few others Sandia LM in a few others. But its accidental mention would not not necessarily lead to a secret underground base on the Pahute Mesa. Thanks for the input.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hiii_98
is the land and airspace in this location secure? Could someone adventure or backpack to the area to check things out without camo dudes pointing guns? I have alot of free time and looking for some more adventures to post on ATS and willing for a challenge.




Someone did that a few years ago and got a brief glimpse at what could have been a hangar door opening at night on the east ridge of Papoose Lake.

But I think this guy was very experienced.

I would strongly suggest that you don't make any attempt to penetrate the perimeter of the Nevada Test Site. At the very least you will get caught and fed to aliens from outer space. IMHO.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Intresting observation! Is there a way we could find out for sure?

I'll try and dig out where I read this.


Originally posted by johnlear
GFAD, what are you betting on here? That I am not telling the truth as to what I saw or that the image has been photoshopped? Or what? Just wanted to be clear here. Thanks.


Im betting that you wouldn't see the scar because it never existed. Just my opinion.

Ripping off the top of a mountain is an incredibly large task, as is carving a ten story base (or whatever) into the rock. IMO its just not worth it. Furthermore, you mentioned 7 miles of cement trucks. This kind of traffic would no doubt create some marks which would also be visible on satellite images.


Originally posted by johnlear
GFAD. I am wondering if you think during a Red Flag excercise all the fighters and bombers load up with bombs, rockets and other ordinance and just go looking for targets of opportunity like 3-4. If so, you are poorly informed. Every mission and every target is carfully coordinated and if there is a dry lake with a target on it and it is not supposed to be bombed then it won't be bombed. My personal opinion is that you are looking at a photo that is at least 20 years ld.


Either way, there is a target on that lakebed for a reason and there are craters around it. Also regarding the age of the image, the target can be seen on this photo taken in february 2006 and this photo march 2003. Incidentaly in that first image the area is covered in snow and there is still no sign of any movement or action on the flats or the mountain ridge.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
This is the area of Sandia taken by a satellite camera in 1984.



This is the same area taken by a satellite camera in 2006.



It doesn't seem like the resolution gets any better with age. As a matter of fact the detail in the 1984 picture (I scanned this from a geological survey map) seems better than the satellite photo taken in 2006.

As a matter of fact it seems that the satellite photo taken in 2006 has less resolution that that taken in 1984. And there seems to be some terrain changes in the 2006 photo as compared with the one taken in 1984. But there are so many little pixels in the 2006 pictures its hard to tell.

Now compare this 2006 satellite image with the current images available of Groom Lake and TTR. On the Groom Lake and TTR images we can see actual airplanes. On this 2006 image of the Sandia area its hard to identify an entire mountain range.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Kinda difficult to compare a snow covered pic with a non-snow covered one. Depending on drifts, melting, etc... it can pile up a couple feet and hide alot of details. Also, one pic seems signifigantly more zoomed in than the other one.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Totally unrelated, but Bob Lazar's United Nuclear carries an address of Sandia Park, NM.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
This is the area of Sandia taken by a satellite camera in 1984.



This is the same area taken by a satellite camera in 2006.



As a matter of fact it seems that the satellite photo taken in 2006 has less resolution that that taken in 1984. And there seems to be some terrain changes in the 2006 photo as compared with the one taken in 1984. But there are so many little pixels in the 2006 pictures its hard to tell.


John,

Are you sure these images are correctly labled?


You are saying the 1984 image is easier to see then the 2006 image. However, for me the one lable 2006 is much clearer. Mislabeling images is easy to do, I've done it before.

Tim

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
John,

Are you sure these images are correctly labled?


You are saying the 1984 image is easier to see then the 2006 image. However, for me the one lable 2006 is much clearer. Mislabeling images is easy to do, I've done it before.

Tim



Tim, I am not sure what you mean 'correctly labeled'? There are only 2 photos. The top one was taken in 1984 the bottom one in 2006 after a snow. (Is this genius or what? There is probably snow in that area 1 or 2 days a year and they pick that exact time to take a photo? You mean to tell me that they didn't have ANY other photos of that area without snow?) What is there to mislabel?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
John I think what Tim is trying to say is that the 2006 image clearly has a higher resolution than the 1986 one but you say the opposite. Did you label the 2006 image as 1986 and vice-versa?

I can answer that and say no, the 2006 image is the snow covered one.

I do agree with Tim though, the 2006 image has a higher resolution than the 1986 one. When you say its not as clear though, thats possibly because you are enlarging an area of a highly compressed photo. The original photo is a sample of a high-res satellite image.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I do agree with Tim though, the 2006 image has a higher resolution than the 1986 one. When you say its not as clear though, thats possibly because you are enlarging an area of a highly compressed photo. The original photo is a sample of a high-res satellite image.



I am not sure what you are calling a high-res satellite image GFAD but my concept of high-res are the current GoogleEarth photos of Groom Lake and TTR. The snow covered 2006 photo of NTS is not high-res as Groom Lake and TTR are high-res.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I am not sure what you are calling a high-res satellite image GFAD but my concept of high-res are the current GoogleEarth photos of Groom Lake and TTR. The snow covered 2006 photo of NTS is not high-res as Groom Lake and TTR are high-res.


I know exactly what High-Res means and the snow covered image of NTS is high-res. Its just what you are looking at is a highly compressed (ie shrunk) sample version of it. When you follow the link you see a number to call to purchase the image, if you did that you would get a nice pretty image with as much detail as Groom or TTR on GE now.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
When you follow the link you see a number to call to purchase the image, if you did that you would get a nice pretty image with as much detail as Groom or TTR on GE now.


Yes, thank you GFAD. What I meant was I can zoom in on Groom Lake and TTR without purchasing anything. I was just trying to make the point that there is obviously something that is being hidden in the area I allege Sandia to exist.

Sandia is now almost 20 years old. There are thousands of people that work there and there are at least 3 major runways. The fact that we can't see even a dirt road into the area would lead me to believe that any photos without snow are from many years ago.

Here is a photo of a Los Angeles Sectional Chart used in aviation. At the center of the chart is R-4807B which is the area directly above Sandia and which was placed on the sectional chart about the time Sandia became operational. A check with Special Use Airspace says that the area above Sandia is restricted in altitude to "Unlimited" which means ground level to outer space, and the 'Time of Use" is 'Continuous'. Seems a little drastic for some rocks and boulders don't you think? Please disregard the runway marks and road marks, they are mine and not meant to represent anything but possible locations of runways and roads.




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Yes, thank you GFAD. What I meant was I can zoom in on Groom Lake and TTR without purchasing anything. I was just trying to make the point that there is obviously something that is being hidden in the area I allege Sandia to exist.


I was trying to make the point that there is a wealth of high res images of the area you are talking about. Just because one GE image has a cloud on it doesn't mean anything. I dont understand how you get the idea that something is "obviously" being hidden. If you ask me nothing is being hidden in that image.

There is nothing there!


Originally posted by johnlear
Sandia is now almost 20 years old. There are thousands of people that work there and there are at least 3 major runways. The fact that we can't see even a dirt road into the area would lead me to believe that any photos without snow are from many years ago.


WRONG again im afraid John. Here are a selection of images of the mountain ridge, the area wehere you believe there are 3 runways and the dry lake bed taken over the past 3 years. Again, none of these show any signs in the areas you still insist on promoting as the site of a secret base:

- 20th December 2006 (with snow)
- 7th December 2006
- 5th May 2006 (with 11% cloud cover)
- 17th April 2006
- 10th May 2003 (with 8% cloud cover)
- 30th April 2003 (with 24% cloud cover)
- 7th March 2003

NOTE: there does seem to have been some circular construction or bombing on the lakebed to the west.


Originally posted by johnlear
Here is a photo of a Los Angeles Sectional Chart used in aviation. At the center of the chart is R-4807B which is the area directly above Sandia and which was placed on the sectional chart about the time Sandia became operational. A check with Special Use Airspace says that the area above Sandia is restricted in altitude to "Unlimited" which means ground level to outer space, and the 'Time of Use" is 'Continuous'. Seems a little drastic for some rocks and boulders don't you think? Please disregard the runway marks and road marks, they are mine and not meant to represent anything but possible locations of runways and roads.


Come on John, do you really need to backtrack that much? On page 1 of this thread you said "If the military has learned anything in the past 20 years it is that you do not signal where a secret base is by placing a restricted area directly over it it."

How can you now use the restricted airspace as justification for your theories?

Finally you say that its a bit drastic, but I believe the entire NTS is designated the same and most of that is simply rocks and boulders.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Finally you say that its a bit drastic, but I believe the entire NTS is designated the same and most of that is simply rocks and boulders.



Wrong again GFAD. Most of the test site is R-4807A and the time of use is 0600 Monday to 1900 Friday. After Friday and 5pm and before Monday at 0600 you can fly over wherever you want (with the exception of TTR, Groom Lake and Sandia) (R-4807B). Take your trusty 150 or 172 and go buzzing all around inside the test site. Call Nellis Control on 119.35 and give them a heads up before you go in though. Tell 'em John Lear sent you.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I seriously don't know where you get this info, bob lazar?

theres nothing there



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Wrong again GFAD. Most of the test site is R-4807A and the time of use is 0600 Monday to 1900 Friday. After Friday and 5pm and before Monday at 0600 you can fly over wherever you want (with the exception of TTR, Groom Lake and Sandia) (R-4807B)


John,

What would the A be for? I was taught the the "N" in 4808 N stood for North! There is no direction that begins with A.

Tim


[edit on 2/23/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Most of the test site is R-4807A and the time of use is 0600 Monday to 1900 Friday.


I stand corrected John, but don't you have any comments on the other pieces of evidence in that post? How about all the photos I produced when you predicted there would be none!?

Its pretty easy to prove something when you ignore all the contradictory evidence



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben94gt
I seriously don't know where you get this info, bob lazar?

theres nothing there



Bob Lazar knew nothing about Sandia, or if he did he didn't tell me anything about it. All my information about Sandia comes from (1) my own observation of its construction while I was flying for DOE on underground nuke monitering flights, (2) 2 persons that worked on Sandia'a construction between 1980 and 1987, (3) one person who saw the 5 miles long cement truck convoys at Cedar Pass used in its construction and (4) 2 persons that worked at Sandia after it became operational.

Sandia is a multi-billion dollar secret underground facility located on the Pahute Mesa. No, its not secret from the Russians, they don't have to rely on lo-res snow covered satellite photos. No. its not secret from the Chinese, they have much better resources than I do. Its secret only from the American Public who paid for it.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
John,

What would the A be for? I was taught the the "N" in 4808 N stood for North! There is no direction that begins with A. Tim



Tim, N does stand for north. The A after 4807 denotes a difference between the 2 sections of 4807. There is a 4807A and a 4807B. There are parts of 4807A that are south of 4807 so its wouldn't be very accurate to label the 2 sections of 4807 N or S.

Now you'll probably want to know where R-4808S is.



new topics




 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join