It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Official Groom Lake photo from the USAF ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:15 AM
Langley F22 with dry lake in the background

That sure looks like Groom Lake in the background of this official USAF photo. I downloaded the high resolution version and cropped out the dry lake.

If I'm correct, then Senior Airman Matthew Lancaster will be assigned KP duty for the rest of his USAF career. ;-)

High resolution full frame shot here:

edit on 9-3-2013 by gariac because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:48 AM
Nice photo but honestly I don't understand the context of your thread.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:11 AM
It is Groom Lake but why can't they take photos of it ?
I've seen a lot of pics that are of the Lazy G Ranch.
This guy is military after all and it is surrounded by Nellis Air Force Range.

Nellis AFB Bombing Range
Nellis AFB Bombing Range
Area 51
Groom Lake Facility
Nevada USA

There a bunch of pics of the area (51) if you want to get a closer look

edit on 9-3-2013 by azureskys because: added more

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:13 AM
I don't think someone is going to peel potatoes over this picture.

There are much more detailed snapshots available:

I just went and looked, and it appears as if they even added 3D buildings in Google Earth. Won't take long until we have street view and a Gigapan image as well lol

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Trueman
Nice photo but honestly I don't understand the context of your thread.

Without soundin too mean I have to agree with this comment. It a pic of an f22 with groom miles away in the back ground. And as another poster pointed out you can get better shots on Google earth

4 flags none the less

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:58 AM
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

Really they were in the process of performing a "Red Flag" drill.
Something they do quite frequently.
Just taking a snap of his budy

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:21 AM
You have to realize there is a difference between Google Earth taking photos of Groom Lake, me taking photos from Tikaoo, and an USAF photographer from Nellis taking the accidental photo of Groom Lake. Presumably one of the above is supposed to pretend the place is a secret. ;-)

I also presume somebody from Nellis has to clear the photos before they are uploaded to the internet.

I will check out the Living Moon stuff later, but I asked them to stop linking to my website.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:36 AM
reply to post by gariac

The site YOU linked is : DVIDS
Defence Video & Imagery Distribution System

I'm pretty sure they have permission to show the photo on this site.

An example of the people who run it

Personnel Bios:

Maj. Scott M. Betts
Director of Operations

Read more:
edit on 9-3-2013 by azureskys because: added more

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by gariac
but I asked them to stop linking to my website.

Don't do that there is lots of good info on the site to keep folks informed about what our service
personel are doing to help protect the country.

It is a great site

edit on 9-3-2013 by azureskys because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:39 AM
Sorry peeps I was in no way trying to be horrible to the OP it is a nice photo I've been a bit stressed this morning

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:55 AM
You guys fail to realize that in a lawsuit against the USAF/Pentagon/DoD for burning hazardous materials at Area 51, a lawyer for the government stood in front of a judge, and said (to the effect of) "This lawsuit has no meaning because there is no Area 51." They produced pictures from Google, and other sources that showed the base, and he said the exact same thing. This was in court. They have only recently even hinted that it exists in an official capacity.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

At best the government will talking about the "operating location near Groom Lake."
presidential determination

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:39 AM
Nice catch. I have a an official USAF photo of an F-4G with Bald Mountain and Groom Lake in the background (the lakebed is about the same size in the picture as it is in the recent F-22 photo). It was taken in May 1980 by MSgt. Paul Harrington.

I have also seen a photo of several F-5E airplanes in aggressor markings, over the Nellis Range with Groom Lake in the background. The picture was displayed as a large format mounted print in the Northrop cafeteria in Hawthorne. I'm not sure if it was an Air Force photo or a Northrop publicity photo.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by Shadowhawk

It would be interesting if Master Sgt Harrington spent the rest of his term peeling potatoes.

Note that on "media day" for this Red Flag, the media was told not to photograph the Langley F-22s. So of course the "official" USAF photo of Red Flag has a Langley F-22.

I was talking to a guy at "the fence" who has been to "media day" at Nellis multiple times. It is possible to get a ride on the tanker, which is how this shot was done. However, I can't say I've ever seen photographs from non-USAF photographers with Groom Lake in the background. So I assume they are instructed not to take those shots. Also on the "forbidden" list are any OT aircraft (operational test).

When I was photographing planes at Red Flag 2013-2, the F-22s had an object on the bottom to make them look larger on radar. I will put a link in this thread later. Anyway, it looks like this F-22 doesn't have the device attached.

As a side note, F-22 don't need NACTS pods for Red Flag. The pod and associated electronics is built into the aircraft. (NACTS is basically ACMI if you are more familiar with that term.)

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:08 PM
Even jets participating in Red Flag are not allowed to flow in the restricted zone around Area 51. This photo is a big deal. It looks like this jet is real close if not in the restricted zone.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by DesertShadow

I believe you are correct that it is very close to the restricted airspace. But in defense of the photographer, the shot was done with a relatively short focal length of 70mm at F14. So the background appears very sharp. That alone is kind of a screw up since it would have made more sense to shoot at a wider aperture. It may just appear to be breaking the box.

A dull spot on the ground appears to me to be a spot on the window that got in the frame due to the small aperture. Had they shot at a moderate aperture, say F4, the non-existent base would have been too blurry to identify. [The lens used was F2.8] If you trust the meta-data date, the photograph was taken on 3/7/2013 at 1:33PM. But time stamps from cameras are notoriously inaccurate. The caption says the photo was taken on 3/5, so there you go. The photo is only moderately cropped, so unless it was shot raw, this is about as good as it will get. The photo was processed in CS4, so potentially there is a raw shot available.

The email address of person who released the photograph is if you want to inquire about his KP duty.

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM
My guess is it was a boom operator and he has many more pics not on that website. At least I'm not alone in posting pics from inside the box! And yes during red flag you can fly in the box if you have proper permission. Cudos to him am his bravery. Lol. It's a lot better clarity than mine though!

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:47 PM
Awesome find Gariac

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:22 AM
reply to post by Trueman

it's the dramatic irony that the government at one point denied such a facility existed and now they've accidently shown it to the people

new topics


log in