It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by coven
I'm calling BS on the O.p. and ne-one (who "works" at area 51).
Anybody who has researched this topic AT ALL knows one thing for a fact. THERE IS NOTHING "Top Secret" at area 51. It was all moved in 1997. I believe to a Base in North Dakota or Colorado (forgive me... it's been so long since I've gone on this 'disinfo' trail that I can't recall exactly which base. (minot would be a good guess though...)
Yeah, some experimentation still goes on in Area 51... but the good stuff has long since gone. So unless your leaking government secrets (friggin traitor!) about new aircraft designs... your in over your head.
Like I said before zx4551 is a complete liar. As someone who lives in Nevada and has a brother stationed at Nellis Air Force Base. I can prove to all of you that he is just looking for attention. If zx has the balls to read this I have some direct questions for him pertaining to the base? So zx4551 are you up for it? I am here waiting to make a fool of you.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Can we all agree to just stop pestering with silly questions? I know, the 2012 issue is 'important' to some...but only to some.
[edit on 6-2-2008 by weedwhacker]
What's with the attitude? There's no reason to call anyone a fool. Should I remind you that you haven't proved anything you say either?
If you do have a brother there, that doesn't mean he knows anything about Area 51 simply because he's at the Nellis Air Force Base.
Until you can prove that you have a brother there who seems to know all the details of Area 51 and will happily share them, you're in the same category as zx and no_one.
[edit on 7-2-2008 by nightmare_david]
Originally posted by zx4551
If these portals are stretched and the anti-grav devices fail it is theorised that the rip in spacetime will be too big to be dissolved by gravity and will instead become a black hole.
There is a danger that these portals can become unstable and cause black holes.
Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, has any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the Black Hole. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the Black Hole has been conjured up by a combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude and is sustained in widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical.
Stephen Crothers – A Brief History Of Black Holes.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
If nothing "Top Secret" is going on at Groom Lake/Area 51 then why is it soo protected? Ever seen the surveilance stuff they use that's all over the place out there?
If everything that's been done there is gone and has been moved, they would have no reason to still keep the security as tight as it is. They know when you're coming before you even do
Also, you try to come off as an expert on Area 51 and mentioned that it moved. You're referring to the Popular Science article from June 1997 (I believe) where they said it moved to the Green River missle complex in Utah. That article was written very poorly and contained all kinds of errors. Go find a copy of that article and look at how the writer, Jim Wilson, had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when it came to Area 51. He said he found the back gate to Area 51 and it wasn't even guarded. The gate he found has nothing to do with Area 51
Originally posted by Freelancer
You live on a large, wooded island, you share this island with many people. You have the knowledge to make a fire, which will help to keep you warm at nights, cook your food, provide a fire that can be seen by your rescuers etc etc.
A. Take the 'risk' of making a fire which, if not properly looked after, 'could' engulf the whole island and kill everyone living on it.
B. Not use this knowledge knowing the risk is too great of the fire spreading throughout the island.
[edit on 6/2/2008 by Freelancer]
Concerns have been raised that performing collisions at previously unexplored energies might unleash new and disastrous phenomena. These include the production of micro black holes, and strangelets. Such issues were raised in connection with the RHIC accelerator, both in the media and in the scientific community ; however, after detailed studies, scientists reached such conclusions as "beyond reasonable doubt, heavy-ion experiments at RHIC will not endanger our planet" and that there is "powerful empirical evidence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production" . One simple argument against such fears is that collisions at these energies (and higher) have been happening in nature for millennia without hazardous effects, as Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays impact Earth's atmosphere and other bodies in the universe. CERN's review concludes, after detailed analysis, that "there is no basis for any conceivable threat" from strangelets, black holes, or monopoles  . Another study was commissioned by CERN in 2007 for publication on CERN's web-site by the end of 2007.
Micro Black Holes
Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC  at a rate on the order of one per second. According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Hawking radiation. The concern is that Hawking radiation (which is still debated ) is not yet an experimentally-tested phenomenon, and so micro black holes might not decay as rapidly as calculated, and accumulate inside the earth and eventually devour it.
To confirm the existence of Hawking radiation, we would need (not only
observations), but reliable models of what radiating black holes would actually look like. We are at present limited in our understanding of how to construct such models, as they require the study of non–linear, realistic, quantum field theory at high temperatures. This is a very difficult technical problem, but it does not require the resolution of foundational issues. To show that black holes did not radiate, we would need to detect the holes, or to have strong indirect evidence of their existence, as well as to show that they do not radiate. At present we are far from doing this. The possibility should be taken
seriously, however. Black holes are attractive dark–matter candidates. Primordial black holes present as halo objects could conceivably be detected by microlensing (Minty et al 2001). If one could get a lower bound on the number of black holes in this or a similar way, and get an incompatible upper bound from gamma–ray observations or cosmology, one might be able to rule out black–hole radiation experimentally.