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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

"Beyond Area 51" by Mack Maloney

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:42 PM
Mack Maloney was interviewed about this book on Mysterious Universe 10.11
Mack Maloney interview

The idea was to research bases other than Area 51. Not exactly a novel idea for a book. The late Harry Helms wrote "Top Secret Tourism" in 2007. The Amazon reviews are accurate enough, so I will spare you my opinion of the book. Back to Maloney, he starts out with the Tonopah Test Range. From the interview, his opinion of the place is reasonable, though he is quite mistaken that there are no UFOs reported near Tonopah. Perhaps he never heard of "the google."

Now what I did find interesting about the interview was Maloney's opinion of S-4, namely there is nothing there. However he claims that the Russians altered their satellites to pass over S-4 rather than Groom Lake, giving Groom Lake some much needed privacy. It seems to me that these locations are so close together that you wouldn't need to do anything to photograph S-4 and Groom Lake from the same orbit. Plus it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians didn't do their share of flying over route 95 back in the day and photographing Groom Lake, the NTS, etc., so they would have photographs of S-4 as well.

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by gariac

This is a good point, interesting ideas. If it was possible, you know the Russians would be doing just that.
edit on 9/22/13 by SixX18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by gariac

I heard this interview on the podcast and while it wasn't cringe-worthy it certainly did not stand out. With most interviews you have to remember that it is his word against yours. His book is another matter, I'm sure it will have/has references readily available.

Yet he did raise some very legitimate points. You cannot discount several eyewitness accounts reporting the same thing and if the military were responsible for all the cases, why light the ships up like a Christmas tree?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

I'm not saying all UFO sighting are military craft, but some of the crashes do have common traits with black projects crashing ie military securing the area, helicopters, restricted access to the area.

A lot of sighting can also be attributed to satellites and things of that nature. My first UFO sighting turned out to be the ISS

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Stealthbomber

The vast majority of UFOs can be explained, especially now in the internet age where NOTAMs are easily downloaded. Then there is the case of people simply not knowing what they are seeing, such as illumination flares, countermeasure flares, afterburners, tracer fire, etc. Having a mil air scanner often solves these mysteries.

I haven't read of a missile launch mistaken for a UFO in at least the last 5 years. I used to wait for the nonsense to show up on various forums from Vandenberg launches, but the press now announces these launches in advance. They were never a secret, but outside of the Santa Maria newspaper, none of the other papers bothered to note them until recently.

Think back to that mysterious "rocket launch" of the California coast a few years ago. Thanks to the internet and flightaware, it was easily determined to be an overseas aircraft flight that had a most excellent contrail.

Last of all, as programs become declassified, UFO sightings such as those caused by the U-2 and A-12 have been explained.

new topics

top topics

log in