Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Open Skies Treaty & Papoose Lake

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I came across the Open Skies treaty that allows all member states to fly recon aircraft over other member states. USA is one of the member states so this would mean that other countries can fly over Groom Lake and Papoose Lake. So why haven't pictures of the so called S4 base been leaked out. Could it be that it does not exist or is it really that well camouflagued, also has anyone tried to get close enough to Papoose Lake from the ground to take any pictures, I know Tikaboo peak is a good vantage for groom lake, but do any exist like this for Papoose Lake?




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Not Quite! Open Skies allows for mutual observation of military operations between the US and Russia. However, it's not a free pass to fly over anywhere you want to look. Some sensitive locations like Groom Lake are still off limits.

Tim



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Not Quite! Open Skies allows for mutual observation of military operations between the US and Russia. However, it's not a free pass to fly over anywhere you want to look. Some sensitive locations like Groom Lake are still off limits.

Tim


Hi Tim, I read an article that stated that member states cannot deny another member state on the grounds of national security, I may have it wrong but I will try and locate the article and post a link

KG



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Found it!!

Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.


According to this, observation flights can only be restricted for reasons of flight safety. It also states that images collected can be shared with any other member state.

heres the link www.state.gov...



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Thanks g60kg,

I didn't realize all areas were open like that. The terms of this treaty mean that even sensitive locations like Groom Lake, or Saratov (the Russian equivalent of Area 51) are fair game for these observation flights. I just learned something new.

Does anyone else find it Ironic that the Russians are allowed to fly over and photograph Area 51, but we American, who by the way pay the bills of Groom Lake, aren't allow anywhere near the base?

Tim



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
What would be the point though? They're going to know well in advance that it was going to happen, and everything would be hidden. You'd get a nice look at a base with a bunch of closed hangars, and empty flight lines. Just like you get from any satellite photo. The treaty was initially signed as a way to verify arms reduction.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   
At least out here Open Skies flights are reported in media about a week before the actual flight. I assume that military knows the schelude at least a moth before the flight.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
The minimum notice is 72 hours. But most of the flights are known well in advance of that. The host country has to be given the chance to inspect the aircraft and sensors, and verify that they are within the bounds of the treaty.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What would be the point though? They're going to know well in advance that it was going to happen, and everything would be hidden. You'd get a nice look at a base with a bunch of closed hangars, and empty flight lines. Just like you get from any satellite photo. The treaty was initially signed as a way to verify arms reduction.


I see your point Zaphod, I know the military can just lock everything away into a hanger so the flight doesnt see anything but can they hide a whole base from these flights?? thats the point Im trying to make, if there really is a base known as S4 surely one of these observation flights would have caught some signs of it??



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by g60kg

I see your point Zaphod, I know the military can just lock everything away into a hanger so the flight doesnt see anything but can they hide a whole base from these flights?? thats the point Im trying to make, if there really is a base known as S4 surely one of these observation flights would have caught some signs of it??


Agreed, How would you conceal an entire military base from an observation flight? Surely the constent human presence in the area would leave some kind of a detectable trace with all of the high tech sensors that exist today.

B.T.W. Sector 4 (S4) is one of several response sectors at Groom Lake. The base is divided into sectors to make emergency response more efficent. S4 has nothing to do with Papoose Lake.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Except that they can do the same thing with satellites. All they have to do is fly a satellite over the area and they're going to know that there's a base there. So what's the difference between finding it with a satellite, or with Open Skies? The only real difference is that the satellite goes over more often than an observation plane would.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Canada also has a part in the treaty and the Russian officals normally fly into the Trenton Airbase. I'll try and pull up an artical.

www.mdn.ca...


The Russian flight over Canada is immediately preceded by one Russia will conduct over the United States. Russia is required to provide Canadian military officials with a flight plan not less than 24 hours before conducting the flight. Under the terms of the Treaty, Russia is entitled to photograph anything it considers of military interest using only equipment that cannot register objects of less than 30 cm across.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 04:52 AM
link   
has anyone ever taken any pictures of Papoose lake from the ground or is it too far in the restricted zone. Surely there must be some pictures out there?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Papoose Lake is completely within the Nevada Test Site. As far as I know, there is no way to access it from the outside.

Just wondering, could you have confused the location of Papoose Lake with Groom Lake (Area 51)? Papoose is dead smack in the middle of the test site, while Area 51 is up in the Northeast Corner.

Tim



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Papoose Lake is completely within the Nevada Test Site. As far as I know, there is no way to access it from the outside.

Just wondering, could you have confused the location of Papoose Lake with Groom Lake (Area 51)? Papoose is dead smack in the middle of the test site, while Area 51 is up in the Northeast Corner.

Tim


No I do know where Papoose lake is, its just below groom lake. The fact that is is dead smack in the middle of the test site propbably adds fuel to the S4 theory, as it is totally hidden from public view from the ground



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Open skies treaty eh....? So if Russia were to fly a Mig-31 recon plane above America... all we could do is sit on our arses?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Open skies treaty eh....? So if Russia were to fly a Mig-31 recon plane above America... all we could do is sit on our arses?


apparently so, but I reckon they must have some sort of agreement between themselves to keep certain things out of public view in both territories.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Agreed, How would you conceal an entire military base from an observation flight? Surely the constent human presence in the area would leave some kind of a detectable trace with all of the high tech sensors that exist today.


Why would they need to conceal the entire base? You know it's there, I know it's there, a lot of people know it's there. What we don't know is what's _in there_, and that is pretty easy to conceal in comparison to a whole site. Underground storage bunkers for aircraft and other sensitive material would be the most obvious choice. And with 72 hours of advance notice it would be pretty easy to hide the stuff which needs to be unseen. 'They' likely take precautions against spy satellites too so why would an overflight be any different?

"Did you see the face of the Open Skies pilot when I buzzed them with the Aurora? Priceless!"



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Open skies treaty eh....? So if Russia were to fly a Mig-31 recon plane above America... all we could do is sit on our arses?


No. Per the treaty, they HAVE to have a military liaison on board the aircraft that's performing the overflight, and traditionally they use an aircraft owned by the host nation. They also require 72 hours advance notice. If all those conditions were met, then yes they could fly a MiG-31 over the US.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This actually lends more credibility to the fabled massive underground tunnels and bases stated by past service personnel and workers.
I find it hard to believe with all the tunneling and construction equip in the Nellis complex that its just for roads and simple bunkers/runways/structures or bomb testing. Theyre construction resourses rival many states combined similar resources btw.
It would be a hoot if we or they had xray sensing technolgy and could see through structures like we see these google type images of Area51.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join