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.


Plausibility Analysis of Archuleta Mesa (Dulce Base)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:43 PM
Preamble: This is a long post. And it intentionally makes no claim one way or another about any of the reported happenings at Archuleta Mesa, more commonly known as the "Dulce Base." This is merely an attempt to determine whether or not it is reasonable to think that an installation could have been built at the time. I apologize for the length, but I could not think of any way to split it up as Gazrok did with Roswell, and while some of it is rather editorial, the majority of it is relevant. Any comments are most welcome; if you find any flaws, please don't hesitate to let me know. I hope that if nothing else this stimulates some more serious thought into the area, and any criticism is appreciated. So, without further ado...

Desert Secrets

There’s something happening here;
What it is ain’t exactly clear…
—Buffalo Springfield, "For What it's Worth"

In the ufology field, like any other research area, the material falls in a large spectrum of publicity. At one end, there’s the Roswell incident of July 6th, 1947, where the military allegedly seized a crashed space craft. There’s the Travis Walton abduction case, popularized in the 1993 movie “Fire in the Sky.” The abduction of Betty and Barney Hill in late 1961 has received lesser fanfare, but is still a favorite among believers. There’s the lesser known “Battle of LA,” where the military fired on an unknown object in the early morning of February 25th. At the other end of the spectrum lay the innumerable eyewitness accounts and tales that never receive any attention at all, and often are debunked without more than a cursory glance.

Somewhere in the midst of this spectrum, towards the more quietly spoken end, lies the story of the Archuleta Mesa, commonly referred to as the Dulce Base (due to Dulce, NM being the nearest town.) While a detailed account is beyond the scope of this paper, a brief overview of the story as accounted on is in order.

Under the Archuleta Mesa in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, the United States military maintains an extremely confidential, multi-level facility dedicated to research of extraterrestrial beings and technology. A large number of extraterrestrial beings are said to reside in this facility, from various races and worlds. In 1979, there was a revolt of the aliens, and the majority of the human workforce was killed. While the base was closed for a brief period of time, it was eventually reopened and operations recommenced.

Regardless of the validity of the story, it does make for excellent reading. Aliens, government conspiracies, secret bases, it’s all the bread and butter of any science fiction writer. Throw into the mix the various accounts of cattle mutilations, mysterious helicopters loitering in the area, and strange lights in the skies. You now have a plot worthy of any Hollywood production team.

While the story of the aliens being held and having a small war is farfetched, prior to dismissing it out of hand one of the more mundane aspects of the story needs to be considered. Is it even reasonable for such a base to have been constructed? In order to determine the plausibility of such construction, there are several variables that must be considered.

The Archuleta Mesa, as stated above, is situated in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. It is definitely tall enough to maintain a large internal structure, standing at approximately 9,236 feet in elevation. However, the mesa stands on an intrusion of augite andesite (granite) over 300 feet thick. While this in itself does not necessarily preclude an installation being built to any depth below the mesa, it would make for the extension of the base below this sill rather difficult.

One side effect of major digging operations, which include the blasting of hard bedrock, can be found on any seismograph station in the area the digging takes place. The usage of explosions, as well as the natural re-shifting of rocks in the tunnels, will register as earthquakes, sometimes as high as magnitude 4. When one pores through the seismological catalogs for New Mexico, the year 1966 was quite busy for the Archuleta Mesa region, with a total of nine earthquakes located, ranging in magnitude 1.5 to 3.2 on the Richter scale. It should be noted that the USGS Earthquake History for New Mexico article states that a magnitude 5.5 tremor struck the nearby town of Dulce, New Mexico on January 23, 1966. The seismic catalog used for reference in this paper states the event as ranging from 4.8 on the Richter scale to 5.1. While this event may very well be of natural occurrence, it is not too difficult to imagine the earthquake was enticed by manmade activities, especially when one considers the relatively low activity of the area.

All of the 1966 earthquakes happened in late January through early February, which does give rise to the idea that they were a naturally occurring sequence of pre/aftershocks with the above stated earthquake as the main tremor. This is not entirely out of the question, given the location of a small fault line running under the mesa. However, it is interesting to note that only two other earthquakes were noted in the area between 1962 and 1995, neither with noticeable precursor or aftershock activity. This makes the burst of activity in early 1966 somewhat suspect, although not necessarily an exact indicator. However, assuming that there is an underground facility at the mesa, January of 1966 can be looked at as at least one step in the construction phase of the base.

Given the extent of planning that needs to be done for any reasonable underground construction, a facility such as this would have to have been presented for design years before the first scoop of the shovel. While other factors such as the Vietnam conflict and the Cold War should also be taken into consideration, the national defense budget climbed from roughly $48 billion in 1960 to approximately $58 billion in 1966. Although this figure was declining as a percentage of the total federal outlay, it jumped from 42.8% in 1965 to 43.2% in 1966, the only increase since World War II. While the increases over these six years can be viewed in relation to increased involvement in more overt political affairs, they also allow for more room in the budget for planning and equipment purchases for an undertaking of the scope of the purported Archuleta Mesa facility. Unfortunately, given the lack of any reliable details on the extent of the structure, it is impossible to determine a cost estimate for comparison.

In 1965, President Johnson requested an additional $1.7 billion for the Vietnam conflict. Even taking that into consideration, the national defense budget still climbed almost six-billion dollars from the 1965 total of $50,620 billion. Even without the claims of many conspiracy theorists stating that the government can manipulate their financial records for the so-called “black” projects, there is still a reasonable amount of leeway in the ledger books for the construction of a large, underground facility.

While the construction of an underground facility in the Archuleta Mesa region could very well have been funded at this time, another base—one more publicly recognized—was also being constructed at this time, and not terribly far from the region in question. About 168 miles to the northeast in Colorado lies Cheyenne Mountain, which opened its massive blast doors also in 1966. Currently home to the North American Aerospace Defense command (NORAD), its main objective is to monitor potential missile attacks on the United States and its troops.

The financial data is admittedly circumstantial, and any increased funding can be viewed in light of the Cheyenne Mountain project. Although this may seem like another nail in the coffin for the Archuleta Mesa, it can also be used to support the theory as well, by considering the next logical question: why Archuleta?

At first glance, the location seems rather illogical. The mesa is, as stated above, situated on an Indian reservation in northern New Mexico. As anyone who has ever partaken in reservation gambling can attest, reservations are not subject to federal sovereignty.

While constructing such a facility in this non-federal location could be considered highly unethical, the federal government has proven that large facilities can be constructed out of the view of the populace. One only has to look at the Groom Lake research facility, more commonly known as Area 51, to see proof of this. The facility was largely unknown until the late 1970’s to early 1980’s, and wasn’t even recognized by the government until the mid 1990’s. The multitude of satellite photos that have been released show an extremely large above ground installation, and there were few, if any reports of the construction of the facility.

The county of Rio Arriba, in which Archuleta Mesa partially sits, has a total land area of 5,883 square miles. The 1960 population of the county was 24,193. This gives a population density of slightly over four people per square mile. By contrast, neighboring Taos County, with a land area of 2,257 square miles and a 1960 population of 15,934, has a population density of just over seven people per square mile. While nearby Sandoval County (land area of 3,717 square miles and a 1960 population of 14,201) has a lower population density at just under four people per square mile, it is also far enough south to remove it from one benefit of Archuleta Mesa’s location.

When constructing any facility for any purposes, whether it is a military installation or a corporate branch office, one of the first things one considers is the logistics of physical transportation to neighboring sites. Especially in the days before the Internet made communication a much easier facet of life, the distance between two locations has always been a major factor in site planning. While the Archuleta Mesa and its surrounding area may seem rather remote and all but useless from a general perspective, it does theoretically have one major benefit in this aspect.

As stated above, the Cheyenne Mountain facility opened its doors in 1966, and is situated roughly 168 miles to the northeast in Colorado. By keeping its radars and sensors tuned to the skies at all times, it is an excellent resource for tracking aerial phenomena. If the Archuleta Mesa facility were to exist, and it were to be used for the study of extraterrestrial craft and beings, then it would be of great use to have it near the United States’ primary aerospace tracking facility. The proximity would allow for easier travel for briefings, as well as quicker transportation of sensitive documents.

Another facility that most certainly bears mention lies roughly 85 miles to the southeast of Archuleta Mesa. Famous for the research done with the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos is one of the United States’ top research facilities. By building a new facility near this center, the more mundane work done at Los Alamos can continue without the need for extending security clearance, and the communication of information and research done at both facilities can be more easily shared as needed.

One final claim commonly used by debunkers bears consideration here, although a counter-argument is generally based only on speculation and is being offered here admittedly as such, with no basis in statistics or reports. In order to maintain a facility that is reported to be as large as the Archuleta Mesa base, there must be a large number of staff. These personnel must enter and leave the facility at some point in time, which bears the question: where are the “doors?” Why is no one ever seen entering and leaving the mesa?

The answer, as stated above, is speculative. Entrances could be located any where in the region. The mesa itself covers a fairly large tract of land, and any method of entering or leaving the facility need not be located in any one particular area. In fact, it can even be stated that the entrances don’t have to be even close to the facility, whereas it wouldn’t be that much more difficult to create a small subway system when the equipment and finances have already been appropriated.

There is no proof that there is a top-secret research facility under the Archuleta Mesa. There is no proof of any government involvement with extraterrestrials, or even proof that extraterrestrials exist. The evidence to back such a claim as a multi-level underground base under the Archuleta Mesa is highly circumstantial, and in some cases can even be used against the theory.

However, given the financial data for the time period and various aspects of the location of the purported base, to say that it’s impossible is just as much of a stretch as to say it exists without a doubt. It is most certainly plausible that the government could have constructed such a facility. The Archuleta Mesa holds reasonable logistical value for the construction of a research center, and the defense budget of the mid-1960’s certainly gives room for the initiation of such an undertaking.

Will we ever know for certain? Most likely not. If it exists, the lack of public attention it has received leads to the conclusion that any projects undertaken there, extraterrestrial or otherwise, are under some of the highest security guidelines. As long as there is a need for national security, there will be a need to keep these projects under the tightest wraps. But the possibilities are most certainly there.

Note: The distances calculated are estimates based on rough locations of features/cities from the USGS National Map Viewer. The latitudes and longitudes given at that site were used in calculations at Chris Michels’ Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculation page. Both are given as references. The distance from the Archuleta Mesa to Los Alamos is based on the city of Los Alamos, and not necessarily the research facility. However, any difference should be negligible in terms of the usage here.


“Extra-Terrestrial Installation in Dulce, New Mexico.”

Diedrich, John. “History of Cheyenne Mountain.” The Gazette. Found on

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:30 AM
Good work, can't let this post sink without a response.

How about this for a loose connection between black budget money and drug booms in relation to part of your post about money issues...

1966 is when all this started, there abouts anyway and there is an issue of where did the money come from? Even for a 'black budget' project.

Could this explain the 60's, the summer of love, drug boom and heavy military trade?

The CIA work hard at ensuring a healthy drug trade around the world and it's been suggested that the drug trade/black market is a source for black budget funding. Look up Michael Rupert for some detailed info about CIA/Wallstreet drug trade.

It's interesting to note also that the drug trade in Afghanistan increased by the thousand of tonnes AFTER the Taliban were removed and the US invaded. While in 2001, a couple days after Sept 11th, Bush was presented with the 'World Wide Attack Matrix' document by the CIA which outlined mass operations globally and authorisation for the CIA to have more power than in it's history. This was put into affected, post excuse (9/11) but was obviously drawn up pre-9/11.

So, if the drug trade pays into the black budget. When we see a rise in the drug trade and CIA involvement, it's a fair assumption that the black budget could be heavily tapped at the time?

We are in the middle of a big drug boom and war not unlike the '60's. Difference is, a lot our drug trade is legal and becoming increasingly more legal under this government. Sedatives and other mood altering pharmaceuticals are on a major rise and the this industry is a BIG payer into the Bush administration, like the oil and war industry.

Bush has spent more than any other president classifying documents, we're seeing 'Terrorism' turned into an enemy, we have wars in countries that were based on flat out lies and misinformation and we have two people - Osama and Al-Zarqawi responsible for all this.

Post November 2001 information, videos, tapes etc of Bin Laden have been very questionable, some even officially proven fake. We have the Iraqi's who are admitting they are the resistance fighting the US saying Al-Zarqawi is an America Psyop and we have 9/11, still a questionable series of events at the apex of this new 'pre-emption' world, also called the beginnings of the NWO plan of attack.

Could the recent rise in Terrorism and drug trafficking be connected to the CIA and black budget operations? If so, it might unlock more information that suggests Terrorism and the CIA are one and the same and created to inadvertently fuel the very 'pre-emptive' warring policy of the NWO (or banking, military, industrial mega business)?

A lot of people on this board have started to wonder if the 'time is coming' when the Alien topic will finally be revealed.

Could the 'war on terror' be a 'fund-raiser' for a NWO black budget in preparation for a UFO presence?

If it happened in the 50's and 60's and resulted in secret bases and projects, could this generations drug rise and violent chaotic wars be another step in this relationship between humans and aliens?

How do you raise money for such an event while keeping the public unawares and focused elsewhere while also traing for a fight and mass crowd control? This 'War on Terror' actually fits this scenario.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

[edit on 26-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:50 AM
Excellent post, and good work on obtaining the information you used to support your statements. The one that I find particularly intriguing is your comment about the increase in seismic activity in January and February of 1966. In my past research forays into the Dulce base, I never thought about looking at other angles, such as this.

I also agree with your statement about the lack of 'doors' leading into the base. I would doubt that the doors would be located close to the base because of the need to maintain extremely high levels of secrecy. In addition, I would suspect that the doors would be camouflaged. Perhaps a few miles down the road there is a service station and garage... with the garage being the vehicle entrance to the facility. It's no secret that many underground bunker installations have average looking structures for their entrance, such as a structure built to resemble a house, etc.

I think any research done in the immediate vicinity of archeluta mesa will not result in any positive results. I think research would need to be done in areas around the mesa.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:08 AM
You make a very good point. I didn't even consider the increase in drug activity at the time. That is definitely something that bears further research, and perhaps one could even look into any rises in drug trade compared to the opening of other bases or the initiation of any black projects that have come to light.

One thing I might add though in regards to financing these projects, the money need not be completely hidden from public view. It merely has to be earmarked for one thing, and appropriated for others. For example, let's say the military budgets $2B for MRE's. It could be theorized that only X% of that two billion goes to actually purchasing the stuff, while the remainder is secreted away for other, more esoteric functions.

While I'm a little fearful on jumping onto any conspiracy theory, you pose a very good argument for the War on Terror being a front. War is good economics, always has been, always will be. And I'm sure that there is more money made through it, directly or otherwise, than the public is made aware of.

The seismic activity was one of the first things I wanted to check into in doing research. I moved to Washington St. a couple of months before Mt. St. Helens woke up here recently, and therefore got really familiar with the USGS' sites. When I'd check earthquake information on the west coast, every couple of days there would be a small quake outside of San Jose; these were caused by a rock quarry in the area. 1 + 1 = 3, any major blasting causes seismic activity (something I knew beforehand, but brought to the front of my mind by this.)

One thing I failed to mention in the post though was that, in reference to the underground tunnel network, there is no seismic data to back that up one way or another. This doesn't mean that there isn't a series of tunnels from the mesa to Area 51 or where ever, but it doesn't help the idea either.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:37 PM
Well, I've spent the past hour or so looking for any drug statistics from the time frame (1960-70), and I haven't found anything that I'd be willing to quote. I've tried the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, FBI, and various non-government organizations, with nothing. Anyone have any idea as to somewhere I can look? I know there's got to be some kind of numbers out there, and it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation.

After re-reading one of my sources (the Budget Info), there is a table with information that might be relevant, although I left it out of the first "draft". Just some quick details of the information from table 3.2 in that document (time frame of 1962-1970):

* Military Procurement expenditure peaked in 1963 at about $16.6B, dropped through '65 to a little under $12B, then started rising again (in 1966 it was at $14.3B)

* The Space Research budget climbed from 1962 through 1966, then dropped through 1970. This is somewhat interesting to me; I would think 66-69 would be the peak, with the race to the moon. Why peak in 66?

* Operations and Maintenance Budgeting was fairly stable from '62-'65; then it started climbing, jumping from $12.3B in 65 to $14.7B in 66, with comparable leaps through 69. Of course, our involvement in Vietnam was increasing through this timeframe as well, which could account for this trend.

* Also of interest IMO, during one of the more tense times of the Cold War, funding for research into atomic energy defense was declining throughout almost this entire period.

Just some correlations I found that strike me as somewhat interesting. If anyone has any opinions/theories on these I'd appreciate hearing them. I would like to see statistics on other, non-public possibilities of fund raising, such as CIA involvement in the drug trade, or any other ideas that might give some kind of numbers.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 02:59 PM
A good source for info on drugs being trafficed in the US. Now understand that this is just the captured amount. who know how much more there was out on the street at that time.
Drug seizures By the DEA

Now all you have to do is compile the data and find out the street values of the drugs.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:31 PM
Thanks for the link Azathoth, I appreciate it. Unfortunately though it poses the same problem I've had with lots of research I've done into UFO's and other, more mundane topics: timeframe. It seems most of the statistics for measuring the drug trade start in the 1980's. Of course, this is probably due to the increase in public awareness at the time, and a higher demand for the government to do something about it. I did find some arrest information for the 60's, but as you state regarding your link, that only shows a small subset. Not everyone involved in the drug trade was arrested.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:46 PM
I'll have to read this later as leaving work, but it looks like a great read...

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:19 PM
Yeah i hear you, During the 60's til the early 80's I don't think it was much of a problem. But you might want to research some things like:

-Overall statistical use of drugs during 60's
-Street value of drugs during 60's era. (Using the cost of living compared
what it is now can determine some of these statistics)

What you can expect is:

-Huge lack of records for arrest for drug use and seizures.( at that time alot of drug use wasn't arrest worthy i guess)

I would also do a search on newsreels for some stats. Time has been around
and they might of done a study on that.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:34 PM
Great post, man.

I have a simple question. Who builds these bases? Are they civilian contractors (how would you keep them quiet?). Does the government have their own "in-house" contractors?

A construction project of this size and this complexity would require literally thousands of highly skilled workers in specialties from plumbing to biological support systems to mining.

On a side note, I am reminded of Half-Life quite a bit. Black Mesa from Archuleta Mesa, the underground subway to ferry in staff, the aliens (and their revolt). The writer of Half-Life could be a fan of Archuleta.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:46 PM
Road trip - get some ATS'ers out there with cameras and sensitive ground mic's and drop them in some gopher holes. Make it like an easter egg hunt - even better:

1st person to get abducted and anal probed gets some ice cream
1st person to get picked up by mysterious MIB's gets a cool pair of MIB sunglasses
1st person that gets pics of UFO, aliens or MIBS gets lots of free press and all the dollars that the mainstream press will give them
1st person to hear spooky sounds from the ground gets an iPod
none of the above - well you got a nice trip to New Mexico....

NM ATS'ers get your butts out there and confirm the crappola....

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Ray Davies
I have a simple question. Who builds these bases? Are they civilian contractors (how would you keep them quiet?). Does the government have their own "in-house" contractors?

A construction project of this size and this complexity would require literally thousands of highly skilled workers in specialties from plumbing to biological support systems to mining.

Strictly in theory, my guess is it would have to be a federal agency and not civilian contractors. Civilians's are notorious for talking when they shouldn't be, and it would be too large of a project to be able to physically silence everyone involved without someone noticing. Then again, that's something else to look into. Maybe there were a relatively large number of missing people in the early 60's, not kids or anything but grown men and women in those fields. The numbers could have been spread out over the map and a connection might never have been made.

But even just the military budget that is made public does allow for quite a large number of personnel, and even just in normal, day to day operations, I'm sure the military employs many individuals who have the background to be capable of such a project. I mean, look at Cheyenne Mountain and the expertise that had to go into it. It wouldn't have been too difficult to use the same work force. It opened it's doors in '66; the majority of the work would have been finished probably in mid- to late-1965. Just a couple hours' drive south and the work crew gets started again.

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:15 PM
I'm not satisfied about the above, look at Lockheed Martin - Civil Mouths wide shut.

Look at the deaths at A51 before the Defence Dept admitted it existed.. one man could'nt even tell the doctor about the chemicals he was exposed to.. then his face basically fell off. Having said that - good work on the research I enjoyed the read.


posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Dallas
I'm not satisfied about the above, look at Lockheed Martin - Civil Mouths wide shut.

Look at the deaths at A51 before the Defence Dept admitted it existed.. one man could'nt even tell the doctor about the chemicals he was exposed to.. then his face basically fell off.

You know, that is something I didn't think about when I made that post. There are quite a few examples like Lockheed. I mean, even non-military: look at the software and movie industries. It's like pulling teeth to get them to talk about anything sometimes. Good point Dallas.

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 07:50 AM
You present some interesting data, but there are still some simple questions that bear asking.

1. Why Archuleta? The government has HUGE tracts of land near the area that AREN'T on Indian land. Why build it on Indian land when so many other locations are available.

2. Why isn't Dulce compartmentalized? The way secrets stay kept is compartmentalization. Dulce would theoretically be no different. Those on level 7 would have NO idea what those on level 2 were doing, aside from rumors. Yet, every "informant" that comes out seems to know exactly whats going on for each and every level, etc.

3. How have they kept the nosy neighbors away? No electric fences, armed guards, etc. will chase you away. Secret or not, you'd think that you wouldn't be allowed to just walk right on top of it....

As for entrance/egress, I'll grant that that could easily be accomplished via an underground rail system from several nearby facilities. However, the above relatively simple questions still seem to not have satisfactory answers. I was wondering if your research had turned up anything that might resolve such questions?

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok
1. Why Archuleta? The government has HUGE tracts of land near the area that AREN'T on Indian land. Why build it on Indian land when so many other locations are available.

I think the primary issues in favor of Archuleta Mesa would lay in the proximity to the other bases and low population density of the counties it's in. Also, the mesa itself only partially resides on the reservation; if you compare the topographic maps from Terraserver (here) with the boundary maps from the National Atlas (the exact image is here, with the bluish region near the mesa being the Jicarilla reservation), you can estimate that a fair part of the terrain is outside of the reservation.

Aside from those, I really have no firm "answer" to give, but a couple of possibilities.

1) Everyone would think that there would be no reason to build on a reservation. The general public would stay away from it, and the indian population probably wouldn't even notice. While such construction would be rather massively staffed, there's a lot of empty space out there and I think it's fair to assume the military limit itself to driving on highways. Also, as someone who lives near a couple of reservations in Washington State, they're pretty easy to ignore if you're not directly involved in them. The only time most anyone I know goes to the res around here is to get cigarettes or if they have to drive through it to get somewhere else.

2) I hate to throw this one up in the air because it sounds like a cop out, but the government could very well have other reasons for building the facility there, reasons we could only speculate as to. Assuming that some of the more esoteric stories are true, for all we know that could be right next to some massive Reptilian base. Hell, it could have been some type of such base as far as that goes, and there wasn't anything to really "construct." I don't necessarily hold the stories of Reptilians very high on the truth scale, but I do use that as an example of a possible scenario in which it would make for an excellent location.

"Why Dulce?" or "Why Archuleta?" are questions that I've actually seen in a different light. If this were to be a hoax, why go through the trouble of creating an imaginary base in such a location? Why not say it's in Antartica, or off the coast and undersea? Why not throw something out that's a hell of a lot less researchable? Or they could've gone with one of the already existing, well-known facilities such as Cheyenne Mt. or Area 51. The fact that they picked that stretch of land, in the US where people can easily go and check it out strikes me as rather strange, but more in favor than against the idea.

2. Why isn't Dulce compartmentalized? The way secrets stay kept is compartmentalization. Dulce would theoretically be no different. Those on level 7 would have NO idea what those on level 2 were doing, aside from rumors. Yet, every "informant" that comes out seems to know exactly whats going on for each and every level, etc.

While this is beyond where I was trying to go with my research, I can again offer a bit of speculation. Bear in mind I have not researched the informants at all, I don't even know what positions they claim to have held. But one possibility that comes straight to mind is the chance they might have actually,
at one time or another, been associated with the various levels of security. Either from rising through the ranks or by some position that is required on each floor (as a lame example, a janitor), they could have at least seen part of everything that happens.

Another possibility is the interaction between staff members. They may have some common area in the base, such as a cafeteria or whatnot, and someone with an extremely high clearance, in a lapse of judgement for whatever reason, spilled the beans to one of the lackies.

Of course, if I remember the story correctly, one of the "informers" was given the details by one of the non-human inhabitants of the facility. Believable or not, IMO that remains a possibility until proven otherwise.

3. How have they kept the nosy neighbors away? No electric fences, armed guards, etc. will chase you away. Secret or not, you'd think that you wouldn't be allowed to just walk right on top of it....

If the base is camouflaged well enough, or if the entrances are somehow no where near the facility, then any attempt at gaurding it would only draw attention. You have this wide space of untouched land, nothing around for miles except maybe a hiking trail or something, and then all of a sudden there's a gaurd post or an electric fence. There's no history (that I know of) of munitions testing, which could be used as a cover story ("Hey kid, get out of here, there's shells around and the one you find may not be a total dud.")

Then you'll get UFO/conspiracy buffs out there by the truckload thinking they found the smoking gun. Or some idiot teenager, or redneck, or whatever, wanting to go check it out just because they aren't supposed to. I think for a truly top-secret facility, Dulce or not, dealing with ET's or not, the best method of protecting it would be to not protect it if no one could see it.

I hope I gave somewhat logical reasoning here in answering your questions. Unfortunately, unlike Area 51 or other bases, there is no physical proof in favor of Dulce. Without any government acknowledgement, the only "proofs" we'll ever get are either pictures no one will believe, or half-way logical conclusions along the lines of what I'm trying to present. And of course, just because it's there doesn't mean it's dealing with extraterrestrials or their technology. It could be the government's way of working around the biological/chemical weapons testing problems (I think Stephen King's The Stand could pose a great basis for that theory in part) or genetic research on human DNA that the general public would be greatly appalled by. By not understanding that, one who found themselves in some of the more exotic labs might easily think they see something other-worldly.

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:56 PM
What needs to happen is someone needs to take scientific readings to see if there are large underground cavities inside the Mesa. That would at least prove it's got large hollow spots!

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:55 AM
You know, that's something I'd never even considered. It would be very difficult to cover up that aspect, and could put the whole story to rest once and for all, one way or another. That is of course if--assuming there is a base there--you were able to do it and make it back out with the data. A very interesting idea...

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:26 PM
Yeah here's what you do.

1. Find and procure a ultrasounding device. There are places online that sell them, but i bet you can find a few for rent from a well drilling company or mining company.

2. Print out a Satellite image a certain area you want to search. A topigraphical map would be best. If you can find any place were the elevation starts to drop i would start there.

3.Bring documentation in case of the possibility that someone shows up. I am working on a thesis about high desert geological density. I am using this equipment for data collection.

4. Don't bring booze. If you are questioned bringing booze definately throws the serious study excuse right out the door.

5. buy MRE's and a bottle of the cheapest hottest sauce you can get. If ever needed you can make a pepper gas bomb. just make sure that the vehicle your driving isn't yours.

6. In the event of being approached by "lizards" remember they taste just like chicken. Bring 1 gallon of KC MAsterpiece barbeque sauce. mmmmmm tasty

7. Bring data to a known geological expert like a professor. Study the findings but always have more then one copy. Safeguard the copy by mailing it to someone or renting a locker somwhere. Make copies and copies if the data represents a major find and could be linked to an underground network of tunnels. Send these to everyone you know on the internet. Unless they shut the internet down you'll have a card.

With all this being said, have a good trip. Bring sunblock!


posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:06 PM
alot of you are asking y the dulce mesa but i have an awnser 4 u see i have always been a courios person and have started studying this off and on 4 a year i know expeshaly alot about nightmare hall (level 7 of the dulce base) nick named by workers there 4 all the horribal things down there. well the anwser to that is an anwser and a question first the Q. why not the mesa now for the anwser see it was a perfict place no one around except for the indians and plus there were slufer feilds,granet walls 300feet thick and on top of it there were already caves so they didnot have 2 start from the out side walls of the mesa they could have simply have just walk to the end of the cave and tell there big drill to drill there start construction and if they had to blow any thing away they could say it was an earth quake because the mesa sits on a falt line but the problem was convensing the people it was actualy an earth quake seems as the place is ushaly quite and earth quake free. but of course they convensed almost every body.

<<   2 >>

log in