My first post! Personal aerial pic of groom and papoose...

Actually I couldn't find the trail to the peak, so those shots were taken nearly at the peak. There is a website that has posted the entire trail, so I may do the climb again. The actual peak is only a few hundred feet higher than where I took the photographs.

The Bonanza Peak trail, at least to the point where I hiked, is quite safe. You could probably do it at night, though I wouldn't suggest it. People have done TIkaboo at night, but I really really don't suggest it. You could fall in any number of places, though probably not a fatal fall. More like an ugly roll down a hill with the potential of eye damage and leaving a testicle on a creosote bush.

Bonanza Peak has numerous switchbacks. So many that you can see people have cut their own trails between the switchbacks just to make it shorter.

Bonanza Peak Trail

I tried it in May once, but there was too much snow. Late summer to early fall is best. The problem with these really high peaks is if the snow doesn't get you, the lightning will. Less lightning in the fall.

Never let the photograph of some, shall I say, senior citizen, fool you. These old guys you find going up the trails are as hard as nails.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

Again, from a person that has actually climbed the mountain and looked for himself, there is nothing at Pappose Dry Lake.

Or you can trust some guy that thinks I was in New Mexico.

The Albuquerque thing was a joke. It's a reference to a famous bugs bunny scene. I'll curb the levity.

The truth is, I envy your time spent gaining certain vantage points around the base and capturing photos, and I regret not being able to do the same. However, I find it intriguing that so many people with grainy and hyper-distant photos (credit Area 51 higher ups for making it near impossible to actually see what's truly going on) are so convinced that there's nothing going on at Papoose dry lake bed. By nothing going on, I mean they aren't able to spot a 5 foot sand-colored sliding door in the shadow of a rocky outcrop from 40+ miles away. Not to mention, your view of the S4 entrance was completely obscured by a mountain from that vantage point.

reply to post by HumanOnEarth



There's also thermal imaging of S4 around somewhere, but If you had a facility out there you'd need to get to it and therein lies the problem, it's hard to do that without showing traces that you have done it.

What I don't get with the whole S4 thing is why bother building a secret base right next to your other secret base? Grooms been able to maintain pretty tight security so why the need for another secret base next to it, when s4 is easier to photograph than groom. Doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

There's also thermal imaging of S4 around somewhere, but If you had a facility out there you'd need to get to it and therein lies the problem, it's hard to do that without showing traces that you have done it.

Please post the thermal imaging data, if you can find it. I've only been able to find some very poor, non-conclusive thermal data. Regarding traces of an entrance, there's 2 main possibilities as I see it:
1) The extremely unnatural looking "turn-around" at the base of the "tongue," which is on the middle, eastern side of Papoose dry lake bed. If this "turn-around" is as man-made and fortified as it appears to be from the air, then I'd wage bets the entrance is right here.
2) Something much more subtle, but within a few hundred meters of that same general area.

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

What I don't get with the whole S4 thing is why bother building a secret base right next to your other secret base? Grooms been able to maintain pretty tight security so why the need for another secret base next to it, when s4 is easier to photograph than groom. Doesn't make sense.

Because... the S4 site reportedly deals with a slew of things that make the activities at Groom Lake look like childs play (looking glass technologies to name one). That then begs the question, "If S4 is all underground, why not just make it underground somewhere at the Groom Lake facility?" The response is that S4 also has the need to perform outside flight tests on recovered/reconstructed/etc vehicles which have been designated as far more sensitive than the goings on at Groom (in other words it's easier to keep a secret between 30 people at S4 than a secret between 300 people at Groom (these numbers are just estimates used to demonstrate a concept)).

reply to post by HumanOnEarth


Except for the fact that people who aren't cleared to view a project don't get to, during the U-2 and SR-71 projects at groom at the start they weren't allowed to know what the other project was ie. if you we're cleared for the SR-71 you weren't allowed to see the U-2.

So you could go test your flying saucer and the people who weren't cleared to see it wouldn't see it. There's many mysterious places around the range and S4 isn't one of them.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


Except we're not talking about spy planes and related technologies. Different sectors and areas are generally utilized for different, completely unrelated projects. The happenings at S4 have nothing to do with planes and weaponry, hence the facility is built in a separate location and administered by a separate group.

Where's a better place within the base than Papoose to test back-engineered UFOs? You need a dry lake bed so that there's no visual evidence left on the ground from rolling out the craft, a mountain flush with the dry lake bed to put everything under (because any potentially invading military force would first check in all the buildings, and least suspect/notice your subtle enclosures), and you need it out of sight from all other facilities on the base so that there's no line of sight, plus all publicly accessible mountain peaks need to be far away enough that nobody with any store-bought telescope or camera can see your entrance, and preferably, quick transport from Area 51 runways by bus. What other place fits most or all of these aspects?

reply to post by HumanOnEarth


But all of that does leave evidence. When you roll it out, even on a dry lake bed there are tracks. Even the driest lake bed leaves tracks when you drive on it. And there would have been evidence of clearing out a mountain hangar, and mining for buildings. Where is all that?

reply to post by HumanOnEarth


The two things can go hand in hand really, did you know that the CIA used to promote the UFO myth to keep the truth about their spy planes from getting out?

Also some of your UFO sightings would be black projects, and then there's supposed UFO crashes, which could be attributed to a black project crash, think about it, people say oh I saw a UFO crash then their was military helicopters and personnel blocking access to the area, these are things that have happend when a black project has crashed.

And you say what better place than S4 to test a Saucer, well I can think of about 100 better places and they all exist..

Let's not forget that Lazar claimed that S-4 had hangar doors built into the side of a mountain adjacent to the lakebed. Somebody even drew a picture based on his description. The problem is that there is no such topography at Papoose Lake. The nearest hill is much farther away from the lakebed. The landscape on the edge of Papoose Lake is gently sloping terrain consisting of alluvial deposits (sand, gravel, and loose rock). It would be a terrible place to excavate a subterranean facility: difficult, expensive, and hard to conceal.

Lazar described hangar doors built into a steeply sloping hillside (the drawing shows the doors standing perpendicular to the lakebed surface) so that the saucers could be towed straight out onto the dry lake. The actual terrain would require doors that lie nearly horizontal, and some sort of subterranean ramp of elevator (not described by Lazar) to get the craft out.

Lazar's description of S-4 does not match the actual terrain features. There is no physical evidence of construction or other activity at Papoose Lake. No credible source has ever backed up Lazar's claims or provided any sort of proof that S-4 exists.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

But all of that does leave evidence. When you roll it out, even on a dry lake bed there are tracks. Even the driest lake bed leaves tracks when you drive on it.

Regarding evidence and tracks: Even if there are dolly tracks on that lake bed right now, our current imagery still isn't good enough to show it, nor could you see that from any publicly accessible mountaintop or even a plane! The "turnaround" is certainly big enough to support the testing, and looks quite active as evidenced by all the 4x4 tracks in the darker soil. Tracks on the white, Papoose lake soil is almost impossible to see in satellite imagery (unless that initial set of tracks become a commonly used road with dozens or hundreds of uses).

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

And there would have been evidence of clearing out a mountain hangar, and mining for buildings. Where is all that?

Subterranean boring equipment which is purported to melt solid rock and eliminate the need for disposal of excess dirt. If you're building possibly the worlds most secret facility and have tens of billions of dollars yearly budget, traditional tunneling equipment (creating a thermal bulls-eye as a byproduct) is off the table. It's also been said that mass tunneling from Groom to Papoose (presumably completed in the early 2000's, conveniently and mysteriously around same the time we started getting good imagery of Papoose) has put an end to the old-fashioned need to commute by bus. Nobody on the outside knows for sure.


And Stealthbomber, I understand your points but each of them have enormous rebuttals from the UFO camp people, and fairly off-topic as this thread pertains to photographs of Papoose and such. If you want to bump some thread regarding crash retrievals or the CIA's clever piggybacking on UFO lore, I'll definitely join the discussion.

We're not talking about melting though solid rock. We are talking about excavating through thousands of feet of loose alluvium (see my earlier post, above). Then there would be the problem of camouflaging the doors in such a way that they would not be detectable in infrared or multispectral imagery. Not to mention the unnecessary expense of constructing expensive subterranean facilities when cheap hangars already provide sufficient cover.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Let's not forget that Lazar claimed that S-4 had hangar doors built into the side of a mountain adjacent to the lakebed. Somebody even drew a picture based on his description. The problem is that there is no such topography at Papoose Lake. The nearest hill is much farther away from the lakebed.

Agreed and I can't account for this either. It's the only aspect which stops me from fully subscribing into the S4 believer group. There are some other dry lakes which DO have mountains jutting up against them, but they're more than twice the distance from Groom, conflicting the information given by multiple people. I've emailed both Lazar and Burisch for clarification on this point which neither of them have ever been questioned (TMK), but I don't expect a speedy response, if any.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
We're not talking about melting though solid rock. We are talking about excavating through thousands of feet of loose alluvium (see my earlier post, above).

It's not so loose at lower depths, and the higher depths near the surface can be fortified where necessary.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Then there would be the problem of camouflaging the doors in such a way that they would not be detectable in infrared or multispectral imagery.

Agree, this would be tricky and they'd need several feet of matching soil as to not cause disturbances. However, the biggest defense against this type of imaging is the simple fact that, from what I can tell, no high resolution multispectral imaging has been used in this area, and certainly no LIDAR imaging. Chalk up another win for the no-fly zone which isn't going away anytime soon.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
....cheap hangars already provide sufficient cover.

Yes but if they've got any sense at all, then they're looking for more than just cover. See midway through my 2nd paragraph in the following post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last time I checked, it was just as hard to see a plane in a hangar as it was under thousands of feet of dirt. ;-)

If only they had a secret base nearby where they could stash the alien saucer in a hangar. Oh wait! How about Groom Lake?

reply to post by HumanOnEarth


I don't think Area 51 would ever really have to stand up to an invading force. There's still a long way to go from the border to the actual facility.

gariac
Last time I checked, it was just as hard to see a plane in a hangar as it was under thousands of feet of dirt. ;-)

If only they had a secret base nearby where they could stash the alien saucer in a hangar. Oh wait! How about Groom Lake?

You didn't read the post.

Stealthbomber
reply to post by HumanOnEarth

 

I don't think Area 51 would ever really have to stand up to an invading force. There's still a long way to go from the border to the actual facility.

Just an example. In other words they don't want someone to just to kill 2 guards, open a door, and see what's happening inside of a hangar. The contents of S-4 are more sensitive than a spy plane or a weapon. A concealed entrance with multiple levels and multiple security measures along the way yields peace of mind, it would seem.

Read somewhere that the R and D had been moved but I imagine that flying in that airspace you have seen some spectacular new aircraft. My questions would did you see any aircraft with radically new propulsion systems, or what appeared to be. Also did you see anything that would make you wonder if we did in fact gain advances from alien tech.

From one vet to another thank you for your service.

The Bot

HumanOnEarth, the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence which indicates there is something/some kind of facility at the location you specify. So far you've pointed out that there appears to be a 4x4 turnaround there. Okay. That's very interesting, but it in no way suggests there is a secret facility hidden in the mountains housing extraterristrial craft. Are you following me here?

The fact that one lone guy told a tale over twenty years ago is not compelling. You must let us know why we should be interested in that location, what's unique about it. What makes you think there is a secret base/facility there? What's your evidence?

You mentioned Burisch. Trust me, that does not help your cause one bit. That guy is 100% BS.

You can't "disprove" people who argue that there is nothing out of the ordinary in that spot, because the burden is not on them. It's on you. All common sense and observable evidence indicates nothing's there.

Your move, HumanOnEarth.

dogshark
HumanOnEarth, the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence which indicates there is something/some kind of facility at the location you specify. So far you've pointed out that there appears to be a 4x4 turnaround there. Okay. That's very interesting, but it in no way suggests there is a secret facility hidden in the mountains housing extraterristrial craft. Are you following me here?

The fact that one lone guy told a tale over twenty years ago is not compelling. You must let us know why we should be interested in that location, what's unique about it. What makes you think there is a secret base/facility there? What's your evidence?

You mentioned Burisch. Trust me, that does not help your cause one bit. That guy is 100% BS.

You can't "disprove" people who argue that there is nothing out of the ordinary in that spot, because the burden is not on them. It's on you. All common sense and observable evidence indicates nothing's there.

Your move, HumanOnEarth.

A burden of proof isn't applicable here as I have no responsibility to prove the concept. The only reason I bring up the whole S-4 thing in this thread is that I'm tired of seeing irrational "This is proof that S-4 doesn't exist" posts when the photo is LITERALLY taken 40 miles away with a mountain peak COMPLETELY blocking out the view of the S-4 entrance location. Denying the existence of S-4 is anyone's right, but not in this context. It's an insult to common logic, and perfectly off the rocker.

S-4 doesn't require Bob Lazar or Dan Burisch to exist. Oh and regarding the latter, uncanny isn't a synonym for liar. There's also Connor O'Ryan the S-4 sentry, and Victor the guy who brought us the alien interview video clip. John Lear backs S-4 too, Phil Schneider, and there are plenty more names connected to this place. It's a common misconception that the only people tied to S-4 were Lazar, or Burisch.

But still, at the end of the day, we've only had 1 person venture near Papoose dry lake bed who was a civilian and in no way interested in the military or UFOs. Here's his story....

At night, he saw two lights near the Papoose lake bed, as reported in the article....

"Freeman saw several lights. One appeared to be a security vehicle that moved around. Another, however, was stationary and appeared to get larger and smaller -- as would a hangar door as it opened and closed."

On photographs, he showed me where he saw the lights. The moving light was consistent with a vehicle moving along a road on the northeast shore of the lakebed, along the foot of the Papoose Range, while the location of the stationary light was consistent with -- ah -- Lazar's secret saucer base. (Why won't Lazar stay dead!?) That is, the light was at the base of the Papoose Range near the lakebed at around the midpoint of the range as seen from the south. I didn't query him on the duration of the light or span of time between the moving and stationary lights.

For the layman, the location mentioned above is precisely where the "4x4 turnaround" sits. This formation looks completely unnatural and there's loads of tracks in the area. Why are there lights and activity at a place where nothing is going on?

reply to post by HumanOnEarth

You didn't read the post.

I have read far more garbage about S-4 than I ever want to read. If you have something in particular to state, just state it. I am not going back to read more Bob Lazar garbage. Life is too short!

reply to post by HumanOnEarth


You can't prove a negative. I can't prove that S-4 doesn't exist. I also can't prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. But I can look and there is nothing there.

However, all these clowns (Lazar, Burish, etc) have done nothing to prove S-4 does exist. Personally, I think the tooth fairy is far more likely to exist than S-4. I recall getting money under my pillow for my baby teeth. So that is physical evidence, though perhaps the money was planted by a government agent.