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.

 

S-4 Question: What does the "S" stand for?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
We all heard of Bob Lazar's S-4 at Papoose Lake. I'm not here to debate if it's real or not. I want to know what is the "S" stand for.

Research has shown us that Site 4 is up near Tonapah Test Range, which is North of Groom Lake. Papoose Lake, is south of Groom, which rules out that possibilty. I can't imagin that there would be two facilities in the Nellis Complex with the same name.

What does the "S" in S-4 supposed to mean?

Tim

[edit on 3/5/2007 by Ghost01]




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Well it could stand for "Section", as section is used in the physical description of land titles.

How about "Secondary" for the site being another secondary offshoot base of groom lake? (i.e. S-2, S-3, S-4, etc)

Or it could simply stand for "Site". They needed an easy way to distinguish between sites, and instead of calling it base 4, they called it site 4...

Idk, just some quick guesses off the top of my head to help start the thread off...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg
Or it could simply stand for "Site". They needed an easy way to distinguish between sites, and instead of calling it base 4, they called it site 4...


Site 4 is up by Tonapah Test Range, which is North of Groom Lake. That was my whole point, they wouldn't have two Site 4's in the same range.

Tim



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
True enough, but you never know. Maybe they have 2 named the same for distraction/disinfo purposes? hehehe... Maybe they have 2 named the same due to sheer stupidity on someone's behalf when it was first built...
"What do you mean we already have an S-4? I thought that one was called S-3? This one should have been S-5? Doh! Too late now, I already have all the signs printed up and delivered... It's gotta stay with the name S-4 too now..."

Some other possible connections are that S4 also stands for "Army Supply Officer", and as well the USMC uses the acronym S4 for the Logistics/Embark Office. Maybe there is some weird connection there? Lazar's S-4 could be the supply & services depot for craft's and visitors of another sort... Hehe...

Idk Ghost, you have me stretching here, do you have any guesses yourself? You must have a few ideas, or you wouldn't have thought about it so much as to post, so let's hear some of your thoughts on this...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg
Well it could stand for "Section", as section is used in the physical description of land titles.

How about "Secondary" for the site being another secondary offshoot base of groom lake? (i.e. S-2, S-3, S-4, etc)

Or it could simply stand for "Site". They needed an easy way to distinguish between sites, and instead of calling it base 4, they called it site 4...

Idk, just some quick guesses off the top of my head to help start the thread off...


Good points, in fact I think Section 4 and Site 4 could explain the confusion created as the acronym S-4 can stand for either. The American government could use this double-meaning acronym to intentionally confuse outsiders!


Dulce facility is allegedly called Section D by insiders. This can be found in the Dulce papers. Perhaps this is a good hint for a Section 4 at Papoose Lake!

[edit on 5-3-2007 by SocialistAgenda]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I was under the impression the the "S" in S-4 stood for sector. As in Sector 4. Am I wrong ?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
Dulce facility is allegedly called Section D by insiders. This can be found in the Dulce papers.

Hot Damn!

What does "D" stand for?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg
Idk Ghost, you have me stretching here, do you have any guesses yourself? You must have a few ideas, or you wouldn't have thought about it so much as to post, so let's hear some of your thoughts on this...


I was origionally thinking the "S" was for Sector. This was based on the assumption that S-4 was a part of the Dreamland Research Center at Groom Lake (A.K.A. AREA 51). However John Lear assures me that S-4 is at Papoose Lake, Which has me wondering if it's really a part of Area 51 at all.

Maybe it stands for sub-base implying that Papoose Lake is considered a part of Dreamland as well as Groom Lake. However this theory has One Flaw: As far as I can tell, Papoose is outside of R-4808N!

Those are my two main theories, but as you can see, both have flaws.

Tim



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Those are my two main theories, but as you can see, both have flaws.


How about this one: The "S" in "S-4" doesn't stand for anything at all, because there is no secret site/base/location/whatever called "S-4" (as opposed to "Site 4" at TTR) in the first place. It doesn't exist, because the story behind it is just a tall tale[*].

Can't see any serious flaw in this theory
!

Regards
yf

[*] I know that this will be considered as blasphemy here
!

[edit on 6.3.2007 by yfxxx]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

How about this one: The "S" in "S-4" doesn't stand for anything at all, because there is no secret site/base/location/whatever called "S-4" (as opposed to "Site 4" at TTR) in the first place. It doesn't exist, because the story behind it is just a tall tale[*].

Can't see any serious flaw in this theory
!
[edit on 6.3.2007 by yfxxx]


It might get you a "reply" from John Lear!


If S-4 would be proven Non-existant, that would make Bob Lazar, and by way of proximity John Lear liars. I'm pritty sure you don't need me to tell you that accusing John of lying will get a reaction.

Tim



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
It might get you a "reply" from John Lear!



Yes, but most likely not a sensible one. Like, say, some actual evidence for the existence of "S-4", other than unsubstantiated tales by less-than-reliable sources (to put it mildly).


If S-4 would be proven Non-existant, that would make Bob Lazar, and by way of proximity John Lear liars. I'm pritty sure you don't need me to tell you that accusing John of lying will get a reaction.


I wouldn't call Mr. Lear a "liar" in the "S-4" context. Lazar is the liar, Lear is (IMHO) only very, very gullible.

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg


Some other possible connections are that S4 also stands for "Army Supply Officer", and as well the USMC uses the acronym S4 for the Logistics/Embark Office. Maybe there is some weird connection there? Lazar's S-4 could be the supply & services depot for craft's and visitors of another sort... Hehe...




yep, years ago, when i read/heard this man talking about his S-4 connections...i got a chuckle outta that because civilians aren't too familiar with militaru jargon.
in my experience there are at least two designations for levels of organization;
at the Division Level there are the 'G'- [1,2,3,4s]
at the Battalion Level these same departments are 'S'- [1,2,3,4s]

i worked in both a G-2 and an S-2,
the G-2 was a Division Headquarters, Intelligence section
the S-2 was a Battalion Headquarters, Intelligence & Reconnaissance

the G-4 & S-4 were mainly the Armory & Supply sections, for storing any rifles issued to you and for signing out a sidearm when your on a courier assignment...unless your permanent duty is in the WarRoom or other secure area...where your issued a sidearm to have immediately available, in a sort of Military Police carry permit status


--


Or Else, Lazar's 'S'-4 (place or department designation ?) was not that type of description, and his & the Base designation 'S-4', meant something totally different than the rest of the US military.
(it's been quite awhile, but i think the motor-pool was identified as a G-5 or S-5, depending upon the size of the installation..)


[edit on 6-3-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobra1982

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
Dulce facility is allegedly called Section D by insiders. This can be found in the Dulce papers.

Hot Damn!

What does "D" stand for?


It probably means Dulce due to its proximity to the Dulce, NM town!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by Ghost01
Those are my two main theories, but as you can see, both have flaws.


How about this one: The "S" in "S-4" doesn't stand for anything at all, because there is no secret site/base/location/whatever called "S-4" (as opposed to "Site 4" at TTR) in the first place. It doesn't exist, because the story behind it is just a tall tale[*].

Can't see any serious flaw in this theory
!

Regards
yf

[*] I know that this will be considered as blasphemy here
!

[edit on 6.3.2007 by yfxxx]


If this "base" is secret how would know that it does not exist? How can you be so sure? Do you have insider information or are you just speculating based on "I trust that my government would not lie to its people" theory?

I look forward to your reply!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
If this "base" is secret how would know that it does not exist? How can you be so sure?

You know perfectly well (on the other hand, maybe you don't) that it's very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative.

With your "logic", there could be millions of "secret bases" all around the world, at each and every spot where you have not been in person and looked around really hard.


Do you have insider information or are you just speculating based on "I trust that my government would not lie to its people" theory?


As far as I know, the U.S. government (which is not "my" government anyway) has never said a lot about "S-4"
.

The point is: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a base called "S-4" at Papoose Lake (or anywhere else, for that matter), except the word of a single individual (Bob Lazar), who has demonstrably lied on issues related to his "S-4" story, e.g. his curriculum vitae.

So, given this non-evidence, why should I assume that "S-4" exists? If I did, I could just as well assume that the tooth fairy exists (I'm sure there are lots of young "witnesses")!

Anyway, believe in what you want. Including the tooth fairy. I don't really care.

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
If this "base" is secret how would know that it does not exist? How can you be so sure?

You know perfectly well (on the other hand, maybe you don't) that it's very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative.

With your "logic", there could be millions of "secret bases" all around the world, at each and every spot where you have not been in person and looked around really hard.


Do you have insider information or are you just speculating based on "I trust that my government would not lie to its people" theory?


As far as I know, the U.S. government (which is not "my" government anyway) has never said a lot about "S-4"
.

The point is: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a base called "S-4" at Papoose Lake (or anywhere else, for that matter), except the word of a single individual (Bob Lazar), who has demonstrably lied on issues related to his "S-4" story, e.g. his curriculum vitae.

So, given this non-evidence, why should I assume that "S-4" exists? If I did, I could just as well assume that the tooth fairy exists (I'm sure there are lots of young "witnesses")!

Anyway, believe in what you want. Including the tooth fairy. I don't really care.

Regards
yf


First of all thanks for answering my questions! I realize I may have put you on the "spot" but tough questions are necessary if we are ever to get to the bottom of this grand conspiracy!

Your arguements are not very convincing for many reasons. First of all, most people know that whistleblowers are not treated kindly and sometimes the government may even attempt to silence them as was the case with Phil Schneider. The only reason he was not silenced was because he managed to get public exposure immediately. The only logical thing to do after that is to attempt a full discredation in the hope that most people will not "buy" his story and the story would quickly just die away.

To a large degree they succeded but some people know better


Obviously, there is a an awful lot of circumstantial evidence and collaborating to re-affirm his story. I guess some people justdon't want to believe in any conspiracy for their own reasons. Thats fine...I don't really mind either way...but I do hate cheap and unthoughtful excuses that some ATS members easily come up with. Makes me wonder why they are even here in the first place.

If we take Lazar out of the equation then there isn't much of a ufo conspiracy especially the government reverse engineering part. If this is the case then I guess all the ufos are extra-terrestial...hmmm...that doesn't make much sense either!

Sorry, but I am gonna believe until proven otherwise...and your tooth fairy analogy is kinda weak if you ask me!

Yes, circumstantial evidence "proves" that there are underground bases both in the USA and elsewhere. Do a little searching on the internet and educate yourself!


This goes for anyone not believing, not just for you!



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
First of all thanks for answering my questions! I realize I may have put you on the "spot" but tough questions are necessary if we are ever to get to the bottom of this grand conspiracy!

[snippo ...]



Whoa!! Your posting must be seen to be believed
! Not overly long, but including at least four different types of logical fallacies, some of them several times. This "grand conspiracy" thingy is a religion for you, isn't it
?


Do a little searching on the internet and educate yourself!


This goes for anyone not believing, not just for you!


! Priceless!!

And by the way: No, I won't go into the details of the logical fallacies I mentioned (look up "Begging the Question", "False Dilemma", "Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence", "Argument to Ignorance", "Argumentum ad populum", if you like). It would be a complete waste of time anyway. As it is always when talking to people with a dogmatic agenda. May I rot in hell for not "believing"
!

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda

Originally posted by Cobra1982

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
Dulce facility is allegedly called Section D by insiders. This can be found in the Dulce papers.

Hot Damn!

What does "D" stand for?


It probably means Dulce due to its proximity to the Dulce, NM town!

I never would of figured that out in a million years.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
All,

I'm one of the "Camo Dudes" as the civilians like to call us. I don't work at Groom Lake, but we're at every USAF base.

S-4 simply means Sector-4. Base/Area maps are sectorized for various mission support funtions. i.e. Major Accident responses, evacuations, priority resources, MOPP levels ect.

The sectors generally are layed out counterclockwise, so Sector-4 is usually in the northeast of whatever base the map entails.

It's a simple answer, but we use the KISS method most times.

NOTE: If you're a real nut about Area-51, checkout the new Microsoft Flight Simulator X, go to the mission area and fly the "Secret Shuttle" mission, it's pretty good. They actually did a lot of reserch, and got much of the Air Traffic down. Check it out.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
SocialistAgenda,

Sorry to Tell you this, but Circular Reason is a very basic Logical Fallacy. You can't use your premise to prove the conclusion.


Tim



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join