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.

 

So you want an Area 51 Google Earth assignment?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
When I did terrain analysis of the Bald Mountain facility, I found a few locations around the range where the base can't see you. Thus I suspected there are cameras in the hills pointing toward those holes in the main security camera view.

tower
I photographed this tower from a location along the road to the back gate. Specifically, from
N37.62406 W115.76771
and pointing towards the 150 degree magnetic radial. I can't find the tower on Google Earth.

It is very unlikely you will spot this tower with your naked eye. What I did was scope out the hills using binoculars, then I took the shot with a 400mm lens.

To make things easier, here is a KMZ file with the vector drawn:
tower 150 kmz

If you want to examine what can be seen by the Bald Mountain facility, use this kmz
Bald Mountain viewshed

Some computers can't handle these overlays. It is a matter of your google earth aperture. There is no simple fix for this.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Sorry you wont be able to see that tower from GE as it is almost certainly under a meter in width, meaning its less the the size of the resolution GE will show.

Having said that, id say its probably here.
here

[edit on 25-11-2009 by freakyclown]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by freakyclown]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Hi,

I had a quick look but could see nothing of a tower although one or two places where, based on elevation and access road it might be. Will have a longer look tonight.

Incidently, in the other thread you posted the following coordinates;

37.217464°-115.847031
Papoose Mountain Facility
37.205433° -115.840112°

Have had both of them marked on my GE for sometime. The first is certainly strange as it's in the middle of nowhere - no tracks, roads or paths anywhere near it.

Finally, I think you ought to charge your government a substantial fee for your 'Intrusion Testing' services!

Peace!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 


You should have pity for the government employee that has to read all these forums and separate the wheat from the er um colorful rocks.

The microflect is commonly known as a pain in the arse if you talk to any communications workers. They are flat panels that are used to reflect microwaves. The alignment is critical because the loss reflecting off the panel is great.

A microflect by design is usually in the middle of no where, though occasionally they are found on repeater sites. Here is a double reflector on Brock Mountain:
Brock mountain

The notion behind the microflect is your transmitter and receiver are located at easy to reach locations, generally on a tower at a facility at ground level. This way the maintenance is easy since you don't have to drive to the mountain top, which in some locations would require a belt/track driven vehicle that can handle snow. Some sites require helicopter access.

Getting back to the microflect on Papoose, I have a photograph of it that I took from the power line overlook. I don't have it handy. But what is funny is I accidentally reversed the image, so it looks like it points to Groom Lake instead of the NTS. The "experts" on another forum spent all sorts of effort explaining how it is potentially used for Groom Lake. Well, you get what you pay for. ;-)



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Hi gariac,

Again, great photos and information. This is not my sphere but I'm learning a lot.

I followed your line from the back door road whilst looking and also watched the spot heights. Is it me or are the GE elevations wrong?

An example (and forgive me if I state this incorrectly) is one area that looks as though it is in a valley is stated as having a higher elevation than what looks to be a nearby ridge;

37 27 47.82 N 115 43 03.73 W (Valley but stated as being 8100')

v

37 27 48.35 N 115 43 34.93 W (Ridge but shown as 7223')

Always appeciate you hard data, information and teaching.

Peace!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Just one more thing,

I know you updated the Lazyg site on Sunday but could you put all of this information - Mount Brock on your site at some point - yes I'm a lazy b...d!

Peace!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by freakyclown
 


I think I see the spot in question. However, when you go to Google Earth, it doesn't show up.
37.608356° -115.746087°

The tower should be detectable. Visibility is a function of the modulation transfer function more than the raw resolution. That's a bit difficult to explain, nor is there a decent explanation I ever found on the net. The modulation transfer function is a parameter of all optical systems. Basically, the your resolution is better if the target is just a blip on the screen so to speak, rather than a array of items the same size. For instance, when you photograph Groom Lake from Tikaboo, you can resolve telephone poles. But if the base had an array of closely spaced telephone poles, you couldn't resolve the individual poles. [As you can see, I can't explain the MTF either. It's a difficult concept.]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Hi gariac,

not saying that's where I thought the tower was - just that in tracing your line, the spot heights shown don't match the image on GE. The two co-ordinates where near your line but used purely to demonstrate what I meant. (Failed again!) :-)

Regarding MTF - I think I understand that a single 'item' is easier to differentiate than several that are similar and/or closely grouped - whether optically or via any other wavelength.

Peace!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 


This page does a decent job of explaining lens MTF. If you dig down you will find a comparison between a 400mm prime and a 100-400m zoom. The zoom lens MTF fall off rapidly as you leave the center of the lens. Good stuff to know.
MTF explained

Film and sensor MTF charts look a bit different.
Fuji film data sheet

The chart is on pae 22. The horizontal axis of a film MTF chart is in lines per millimeter. If you had a grating with lines at different spacings, the average density of the film would fall off with increasing line density. So at around 40 lines per mm, the intensity would be half.

Everything in the chain has a MTF. For long distance telephotography, the atmosphere generally has the worse MTF. The film charts are done at high contrast. For low constrast, things get much worse.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join