Area 51/Groom Lake Research Project, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 29-7-2004 @ 12:20 PM by ghost
For the purpose of helping the team stay orginized and Up to date on our research and current leads, I will do periodic status updates. In these Updates, I will post our major finds and leeds for all to see. Since this post is a summery of all Research, I will include Everyone's work in this post (But not in detail). This post is stictly to aid us with orginization, Not to take Credit from anyone! Thanks to the fallowing People we have the info in this post: Infinite, FredT, machinegunjordan, and ghost, and DeltaNine This is the second update on the project.

On the 25th of July Infinite left our team and Delta Nine Joined! Best of luck Infinite! Welcome Delta Nine, and thanks for the help!

We also might have a research project ATS soon that was born from some Info that this team has found. (more on this in future updates as info is avalible)

Here's what we have!(arranged by goal):

#1: To find out exactly when the base was first built and to construct accurate and more complete time line of the base's history. (See Time Line Posts) summery: the current time line goes from 1955 to the present. We have had many additions and updates of the time line. The US military was active in the Groom lake Area in the 1940's

#2: To determine who owns and runs the base today.
Still unknown, but may be a joint effort of the NSA/USAF/DARPA (our latest finds suggest that the NSA may have replaced the CIA as the base's primary Intelligence agency)

#3: Identify likly areas of technology and science being researched at the base and how they apply to Defense and National Security.

What we have: Advanced Stealth, UAV's, Intelligence/Reconnassance systems,

#4: Determine what government Departmets/Agencies are at the base

US Department of Defense, US Air Force (Det 3 AFFTC), CIA, DARPA, NSA

#5: Learn how the base ties into other covert government activities beyond research (EX: Intelligence, SpecOp's, ect.) We've linked the Base to Intelligence operations based on who's there. Also Many of the base's secret projects seem to be linked to intelligence gathering hardware or Projects (EX: spyplanes, the MiG's that were tested).
The NSA seems to be the main party in these activities through the CSS. The base appears to support SIGHT & ELINT missions using secret new aircrafts.

#6: Answer the Big question: does the base have an Official name/ if so what is it?
Still not known! The base does not seam to have an offical name, but is known by the radio Call Sign of it's Air Traffic Control Tower "Dreamland" (still being fallowed up on, but this seems to be the latest consensus!)

This Summery shows that we are doing very well with this project so far. I'm very impressed with both the Quality and the quanity of the research that the team has provided. Keep up the Great Work!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


reply posted on 30-7-2004 @ 07:46 AM by ghost
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by ghost
I say that because federal regulations require all aircrafts and all ground stations to have a standard call sign for Air Traffic Control and ID Purposes. What do you think?


I like it. The ATC program would no doubt see non stealth plaes. At least a skin paint, and most would have to have a trasponder to transit ATC areas. I rereading an F-117 book by Paul Crickmore, there was a discussion about testing the F-117 for tanking with the KC-10 and KC-135. These were done out at sea and NOT over Groom or Nellis. You would have to get LA ATC for permission to transit the airspace. A common call sign would simplyfy matters and make things safe. ATC controllers would know (esp Nellis ones) that a "Dreamland" call sign would have priority at the very least. I don't know any ATC controllers, but tommow I will see if I can find out any information from the FAA regarding how they handle classified military flights through civilian airspace.


Fred, not to be mean, but I think you might have misunderstood me! Dremland applies Only to the base's air traffic control tower, NOT to any of the base's aircraft. Just as each aircraft has it's own unique Call Sign that it does not share with any other aircraft, the same is true of Air Traffic Control Towers. So, Dreamland is unique to the Air Traffic Control Tower at Groom Lake, noone else can use that call sign.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



reply posted on 1-8-2004 @ 06:26 PM by FredT
Having done some research into the topic, talked to our resident mining engineer (my dad) looked at mining projects both in literature and first hand (more on that later) I have come to a conclution about the possibility that a large underground base exists specificaly at the Area 51 Complex.

Putting on my best Don Corleone Voice "I must say no to you, and I will give you my reasons"

1) The biggest question is what to do about the "muck" and derbits that a huge underground complex would entail.

Yesterday I spent part of the day at the Niebaum-Coppola Winery. We have "Rubicon" level membership there (took 4 years on a wait list) to pick up a few bottles of wine. One of the recent projects has involved tunnling into the mountain side to create caves to age their flagship wine "Rubicon" (If you can find it, the 1997 and the 99 are pretty kick ass). The project did not take a huge amount of time but the resulting muck created alot of headaches. I was talking to one of the staff at the winery and came away with a few points. First, the costs of hauling away the muck was almost the same as carving the tunnell itself. Disposal was an issue, but for some reason the staff member did not want to discuss that. The hauling away of the muck did considerable damage to the roadbed. The point of this other than getting to sample some good wine is that the waste created is a huge problem for public disposal let alone covert. Furthermore, the base would need to be constructed and the muck disposed of in a manner that would not draw the attention of the public, people not cleared for the project, spy and commerical satelites etc. The other recent tunnling project is Bostons "Big Dig" which required huge amount of manpower and disposal of the muck also gnerated problems. They backfilled in an area to create an island. This option would not be avalible to someone building a covert base.

Now with that in light lets consider the circumstances of Groom lake:

1) Site, somewhat covert, however since the early 80' untill the AF annexed all of the surrounding mountains, one was able to directly obsever the base from a distance. None of the reports from area 51 observers ie. Glen Cambell, never talk about any signs of mining or digging activity at the base (at least not in large scale). In the mid 90's the advent of both declassified Soviet spy satelites and commerical satelites do not reveal any huge derbit fields anywere near the base. Nor does it show any signifigant construction of hardened dirt roads that would allow big trucks to move the muck soemwere else on the Nellis Range.
That leaves the period of the 50' and the 60' when the base had not attracted any attention. We do have the Soviet Satelite shot of Groom lake in the 60's that shows a much smaller base, but again no indication of large sacle mining or digging activity. GooseUK's suggestion of usuing old mines has alot of merit and the possibilities are there. This hypotisis is directly supported by Richard Sauder's book "Underwater and Underground Bases" However, even he indicates that the best area for this is under Stripmines both active and inactive. they are huge areas, usually have underlying solid rick, and covert tunneling can be acomplished with the muck blended into overall mining operations. These complexes are HUGE. Last november, we spent 2 weeks driving through the SW of the US. Came across a strip mine in Arizona and it went on for mines and miles. You could easily conceal a miliraty base under the strip mine itself with no problem. However, none of the shots of the base show a strip mine old or new. We know from the USGS maps that there are numerous mines and claims dotting the area. However, most of these are in the groom range. not on the lakebed itself. As I pointed out, there is no indication past or presence of a hardened dirt roadway that would allow transportation of the Muck to dump them in the mine. Part of my november trip involved alot of off roading in death valley and near Josua Tree. We cam across numerous abandoned mines. The entrances were really tight and would involve alot of work to get the muck down there. These guys want these project to involve the minimum amout of people possible.

One area I really want to see a shot of is the Groom Mountain Range that is north of the lake bed. A dirt road cuts through it and that is the loaction of most of the mines on the groom mine Quad (the map the base is on) In every shot of the area, it is impossible to see the range from overhead.

If there is an underground componet to the base, I will put money that there is an istallation located somewere in that range.

2) The giant hanger concealing an elevator. Hanger 18 at Groom was mention in a previous post as possible concealing an elevator. This idea also has merit, however, I submit that this was built for mating ships like the Brilliant Buzzard, or for servicing the Venture Star which may have had a black counterpart. If they are moving ships up from below, would they need such a huge structure?

3) Base Logistics. While I have never claimed to be an imagry analysis from the NRO, I have not seen anything that resembles powerlines or a huge generation plant that would supply the base with power. So were does the base get its power? Nuclear would be a sound option for an underground base. And it would have been easy to construct in the 60's. Also the base is not subject to any US environmental regulations and that gets renewed each year by the president. I have not been able to verify even by rumor of such a plant existing. Underground powerlines would also have given some indication from the overhead imagry. The other issue for deeply buried bases that I picked up from the Saunders book is that due to the amount of heat that deep in the ground, the surrounding rock has to be chilled over a period of a few years prior to habitiation otherwise the equipment and people wont be able to function. The plant also has to have an ongoing cooling operation to maintain working temperatures. Again all of this requires alot of power and infrastructure. Non of the pictures show this.

These are just some of the points I have considered when looking at an undergroud base. I would appreciate feedback on this. I am not married to my conclutions here, but I believe them to be sound

Fred
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^