Talk:Area 51

New Image

Area 51 gate located on Groom Road

I was wonder if we can add this image somewhere in the file? Its a fairly recent picture of the gate. I would do it myself but. 1. I cant edit this page and. 2. Even if i could, I wouldn't want to annoy anyone.Tim1337 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is my own image Tim1337 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has an image much like yours in it already. The other image has a govt vehicle in it as well, though yours has better focus on the sign's text. I think we should keep the existing image with the vehicle atop the hill. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I partially agree maybe we can just have the image cropped to focus on the sign and what it says. Emphasizing the consequence on trespassing. On the other picture you cant make out what the small print says. Also it was never confirmed that the vehicle is military or govt. Its possibly a private security company. Tim1337 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Correction Govt plates on vehicles although security is private Tim1337 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Area 51 mentioned in declassified CIA memo

Primary source

"OXCART Reconnaissance of North Vietnam" 5/15/1967

Memo
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0002.gif

Reference to Area 51 on page 15
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0017.gif
"Three OXCART aircraft and the necessary task force personnel will be deployed from Area 51 to Kadena."

IHTFP (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

nice find! --Enemenemu (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they slipped up, because they blacked out what appears to be "Area 51" on the next page.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0018.gif

"The OXCART aircraft will be flown non-stop from Area 51 to Kadena..."

To see other pages, just edit the last two digits in the link.

IHTFP (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So if it was declassified that means at some point it was a secret? Meaning part of a conspiracy about it was in fact true? Shouldn't there be a section about government cover up? If it was declassified then it was a cover up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.190 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article in the Seattle Times

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011461015_area51vets28m.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I just dropped in to post that I added that article to External links, and suggest that if there's enough information available from various reliable sources perhaps a section on 'Area 51 vets' might be added. Great minds think alike. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Times piece. I removed the external link as I've incorporated cites from it into the body of this article and of Lockheed A-12. YLee (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture section cleanup

The Popular Culture section is an out-of-control mess. We really do not need every single mention of Area 51 in any book, video game, or movie. I propose to delete most of the examples and replace the section with a few paragraphs akin to Caltech's article. Only media in which Area 51 play an important part will appear, with no more than one or two per each type. YLee (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The sigma patch photo is upside down!

FWIW Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please edit the description under the sigma letter. It is inaccurate.

Can somebody please finally edit the description that appears in the main page about the letter sigma? It is upside down, and thus not a sigma letter at all. If in doubt check Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma). Plus, there is no reference whatsoever to support the accuracy of the information provided (whether it really does appear on stealth aircrafts).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody sundae (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 ... I noticed this also. I clicked on the image and the reason for it being inverted apparently has to do with the specific stylizing of the symbol to make it unique for the Air Force, Have Blue program, Groom Lake, NTTR, or whom/whatever... I'll look into it more. For now it would be nice if the caption for the image on the main page is the same as its detailed description ...or at least mentions why it is flipped horizontally/upside down. It would also be nice if the original poster gave a better explanation or origin for the image. ETA: Just looked at Flakeyswilson's talk page, other people have commented. Maybe he'll check back soon...—Jeffman1911 (talk) 09:18, 30 Nov 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Depictionimage (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

screenshot possibility

If I could get a screenshot from a wide overvie of area 51 if anyone wants me to. I could do so using google earth which i have on my personal laptop. ~~unknown~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

N Sorry - Google Earth imagery is copyrighted, and not really appropriate for usage in the Wikipedia: "Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia". See the image use policy and image guidelines for information regarding uploading images that you did not yourself create. Downloading an image or taking a screen shot of something you found on the Internet that is created and owned by Google Earth or Virtual Earth or Yahoo! Maps or MapQuest (etc.), or taking a photograph of pages from the Rand McNally road atlas, does not make it your own for free distribution to others. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

whats a way I can get a better image of area 51 without copyright? I could get it done that way later. 68.70.14.63 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)unknown68.70.14.63 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no way. If we knew of a way, we'd have done it already. We already use the best free imagery that exists. You can't go there, on the ground or in the air, to take a better photo. 86.164.11.154 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors Need to Fix

In the 1974 Skylab photography section there a few mistakes. One is an open italics tag being outputted as text. The other is a 'redant' tag. Not sure what the redant tag is and it might not be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.93.134 (talk • contribs)

Gross distortions

The biggest load of crap and disinformation!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.65.85 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is very helpful indeed. Fnj2 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Detachment of Edwards???

I thought it was Nellis AFB? 129.100.254.154 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too. Edwards is in California. Jimmattor (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC) jimmattor

"Detachment" mean "not attached". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interlink request

Section "UFO and other conspiracy theories concerning Area 51" list, last line: "Activities related to a supposed shadowy one world government...". The current link goes to the legitimate theory of a world government. To better connect to the conspiracy theory as related to Area 51, I request the hidden link of [[New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Alien Invasion|one world government]] be added. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done That makes sense to me, so I've gone ahead and made the change. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

JT3 Support

JT3 provides engineering and technical support for the AFFTC and NTTR, and by extension, Area 51.
http://jt3.com/jt3.asp IHTFP (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That website appears to be down. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Try again. IHTFP (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The site blocks traffic from outside the US and Canada - try pointing host-tracker at it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Project 57

I found no mention here of Project 57 [sic], where part of Area 51 is now plutonium-contaminated for perhaps 24,000 years. See http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/9/annie_jacobsen_on_new_book_area and I will leave it to those of you who've been more invoved in ths Area 51 WP page, to decide what style and where to put a sub-section here on Project 57 but this is not speculation (see above DemocracyNow.org url) "..the Defense Department and the Atomic Energy Commission in 1957 wanted to know what would happen if one of their bombers carrying a nuclear weapon were to crash on American soil. Would a mushroom cloud explode, or would something else happen? And so they performed this test out there, which in essence is a dirty bomb test. And yes, indeed, what happened was plutonium was disbursed over 895 acres, just a little bit north of Groom Lake at Area 51. And as we know, plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years...That land was contaminated, and it is also still contaminated today, despite ongoing efforts to clean it up.." --Harel (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The source would properly be the book, rather than a discussion about it. The Annie Jacobsen article has some excerpts of reviews of the book, with several reliable sources including snopes, Dwayne Day, and historian Richard Rhodes, calling it "error-ridden", "unreliable", and "false". Still, we should mention it. Unfortunately it's not available in the UK for me to read. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems it now is available in the UK; I've ordered a copy. I don't know how to handle cases where it makes claims unsupported by corroborating sources. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Several people uploaded the book to Scribd. Search for Area 51 Jacobsen.

For example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56156853/Area-51-Annie-Jacobsen

I would use it the same way I use Wikipedia, as a source of leads, without putting faith into its unverifiable claims, like the whole Soviet Nazi UFO story.

There are other sources on Project 57. It wasn't done at Area 51, but if it had a significant impact on Area 51, it's worth mentioning, same way Chernobyl is mentioned in the article on Belarus. 71.105.108.191 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

post by nathan1001100

I Username nathan1001100 have found on google maps, satellite, and earth have found AREA 51 i am not kidding you seriosly look up adress: groom lake and then it shoul say groom lake NV united states and you shuld seea big white lake up is area 51 or just look at the pictureon the top of the article screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan1001100 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything you describe is already discussed, with good sources, in the article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Area 51 unit patch

Another connection between the Air Force Flight Test Center and Area 51. The following patch says "Air Force Flight Test Center" at the top, but has a star closer to Nevada than to California. The caption on the right says the unit operates "out of a secret Air Force base near Groom Lake."
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03/31/science/0401-PATCH_3.html IHTFP (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Story in The Independent

I don't have time to work on this now, but The Independent did a story today about Area 51 (so I'm leaving this here as a reminder if no-one else does something on it first) - it's at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-very-secret-history-of-area-51-2306942.html -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add links to Boeing 737 and f-16

C1r9u9m3p (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please give appropriate references to reliable sources, and re-request.  Chzz  ►  00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

N Not done

Edit request on 2 December 2011

Find "fromthe MiG-17" and replace with "from the MiG-17"

80.168.129.186 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done, thank you for pointing this out--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Area 51 28 August 1968 6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Area 51 28 August 1968 6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, bravo, bravissimo! I think all the article should be deleted, we should begin again to trust our governments, we should look at them as the fathers of the state and the patriarchs of the church, yes, we owe them BLIND TRUST, the same for the deleting bots that are useful for them, that are holy instruments to teach us BLIND TRUST. Hmm, thinking again about it, i wonder why nobody had the inspiration to build an uncensored and uncutted Wikipedia Clone, widespread in many sites and many countries, maybe in shortest time poeple would read only this clone instead of the original... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.211.28 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

The article on "Area 51" contains the following paragraph-

Groom saw the first flight of most major Blackbird variants: A-12, the abortive YF-12A interceptor variant designed to intercept Soviet manned bombers, and the D-21 Blackbird-based drone project. By the end of 1963, nine A-12s were at Area 51. A mock-up of the "Reconnaissance Strike-71" (RS-71) was inspected by the Air Force on 4 June 1962. The concept of a strike A-12 with strategic bombing capabilities ran into political problems from both the Air Force, which was involved with the XB-70 Valkyrie program at the time and a lack of enthusiasm from Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara. McNamara and his "whiz kids" saw no need for additional manned bombers in the age of ICBMs. In addition McNamara was phasing down Air Defense Command and saw no use for the YF-12A Interceptor. Accordingly, only the reconnaissance version of the RS-71 remained (it kept the "strike" part of the name, however). Where the A-12 was deiigned for clandestine overflights of Soviet territory, the RS-71 carried additional side-looking cameras and other sensors which gave it much greater capabilities. On December 27–28, 1962, a contract was issued to Lockheed to build six test RS-71s.[31]

In the 2nd last sentence, there is a spelling mistake. Kindly change "deiigned" to "designed" Anoopvasudevan89 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by User:Bwmoll3. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

most all your links from this page - try using ONE and only (1) town.

—184.98.180.46 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined as unintelligible. Please feel free to relist — just delete the "tlc|" in the geodata-check tag — and provide a better explanation of what you mean. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What county or counties is it in?

Ummm, if it isn't some kind of highly classified secret, maybe somebody could just blurt out what county it is in. Maybe somewhere in the first paragraph. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's in Lincoln County; both the Lincoln County sheriff and tax assessor are mentioned in the article, and the article is in Category:Buildings and structures in Lincoln County, Nevada. The county lines are shown in the map. Not every detail can be in the lede. Nuclear Duck (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)