Jump to content

Talk:Area 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 155.247.166.32 (talk) at 16:22, 20 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why are unregisted people disabled to improve this article?

"Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled." Why that? I want to improve the article, but don`t want to become registered. E.g.: I want to insert a picture of the german article into this. But I can´t. That´s a bit stupid! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.0.217.209 (talk • contribs).

Because people keep vandalizing this article, so the article receives temporary protection and then is unprotected so unregistered users can edit the article. (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:59, 19

April 2007 (UTC) Now I´m Wikipedian...so improvation can continue...

I have added two pictures, from commons (already used in the German Wikipedia article). I didn't add the one of the inflatable martian, as I didn't think that it was very helpful. I also didn't add Datei:Area51.jpg, as it's a copyrighted Google image that doesn't belong on Wikipedia and needs to be deleted. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "vandalising" in Wikipedia speak generally means "disagreeing with a view that I happen to believe in" or "saying something that I find unpalatable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell us what you'd like to add, and cite reliable sources, we'll be more than happy to add it. Or you can register for an account, and add it yourself. If you have any evidence that someone has suppressed such factual and source-supported information, please supply that evidence, rather than whingeing gaseously on the talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visible from Vegas airspace?

I was just playing around with Google Earth and, based upon it, in theory Area 51 should be visible from any aircraft flying over Las Vegas at an altitude of at least 30,000 feet. Obviously Google Earth isn't a 100% accurate representation of what one might see from such an altitude, but I'm wondering if there is any source that suggests that anyone flying over Vegas (perhaps en route to somewhere else) might be able to see Groom Lake if they know where to look. Just a thought -- this isn't something that can be added without a source. 68.146.41.17 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the base itself will be very distantly viewable, as you say - probably as something of a nondescript splotch. That would confirm the existence of the base (which really nobody denies) but I don't think there's any chance of anyone seeing anything interesting. Indeed, you can fly much closer to it (Tom Mahood's page details a flight someone took right along the perimeter of the restricted area) in general aviation aircraft. The proximity to Vegas does make it likely that they're less comfortable testing their super-secret stuff there, I guess: back in the '50s Vegas barely existed, and Groom must have seemed like the utter back of beyond. But with Vegas a huge and fast-growing city, Groom probably isn't out-of-the-way enough. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless you have a 300x zoom along with you you dont have chance of seeing anything and I highly doubt that youll get on a plane with a camera these days (ref. terrorism) (unknown anom)
It's actually really easy to get onboard a plane with a camara; most cell phones bought within about the last two years have one built in. But your not going to get a better image from it than you can from satelights. Personally if I were running Groom, I would use it's existance to distract people from where the current real secret labs are. (And I'd locate the real places in areas less visible to satelights). Jon (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's probably visible by plane from some places and there's no rules against bringing a camera on a scheduled flight with you. However, I doubt you'd get any photos that'd reveal anything beyond what you can see on photos taken from hilltops or the existing satellite imagery. BabyNuke (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I flew through the area many times back in the early 1990s and even from the Indian Springs area, which is about 30 miles away, it's very difficult to see anything except a vague hint of pavement and buildings. The air routes north and east of the base are not any closer. They concealed the site really well. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there's no chance you took a photo that we could use in the article? Even a blurry photo of vague pavement and buildings would be better than nothing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black mesa

Area 51 has nothing to do with Black Mesa research facility of Half-Life 1,2, Black mesa is a site east of grand canyon far from Area 51Please remove it from popular culture.

I think the first Half-Life was inspired by Area 51. I can see how this person got mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.162.173 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your reliable source is? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JANET route map

It would be nice to create a route map and to copy a timetable of JANET! The information you need are on dreamlandresort.com. I can´t create the route map because I´m to bad on computer programs!  :( Dagadt

We need a reliable sources showing the route(s). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTA san andreas

What about area 69 in gta san andreas, is that not a pop culture parody of area 51? Given the fact in the game it's in the desert and if you fly too close to it you get shot down. Just thought I'd mention it so someone else can edit it in, I'm not a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.207.240 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous versions of the article contained that stuff. At some point someone removed it. Surely it didn't help this article one iota, and surely such (IMO trivia) belongs on the GTA-SA article alone. Otherwise this article, like too many other Wikipedia articles, ends up a dull and uninformative recitation of "it was mentioned in" for some dead game or other, and doesn't provide visitors what they surely really want, as much factual and sourced info about the real place that we can. It's very difficult for me to imagine someone asking "gosh, if only I could read about the old video games that had minor places in them that might slightly suggest Area 51?" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPMilHist assessment

Demoted to "Start", as more inline citations are needed. Ejosse1 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one from the military history project has ever made any material contribution to the article. You guys just show up here every year or so and add some junk tag to it. It seems more like scent-marking your territory than a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor's videotape on Art Bell

I deleted this paragraph:


The problem with this paragraph is that it is not supported by reliable media sources. New Testament is not a peer-reviewed scholarly source — they have a point of view to push. Crowded Skies isn't peer-reviewed either, and certainly isn't scholarly. Roy Lake wasn't and Daz Smith isn't a world-renowned expert. Mark Russell Bell's New Testament reeks of his personal POV, and this Bell is also no famous expert. None of these sources are major media and none are even local newspapers. Out they go, taking the paragraph with them. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're in something of a strange position in this article. Clearly Art Bell hasn't a clue what goes on in Area 51, but part of this article has to be about the role Area 51 plays in modern ufo mythology and folklore. Finding an acceptable reliable source in that field is hard; but evidently the ufo people do think that portentous things happen there. I'd certainly not claim Art Bell is a reliable source for what actually happens at Area 51, but I do thing he's as close as we'll get for a reliable source for what the UFO nutters think is happening there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most secretive places

If it was one of the most secretive places in the world, why would we know that it exists? Surely those places we don't know about are more secret? The statement is not verifiable, by definition of the phrase 'most secret'. You can't say anything either way. 217.44.238.237 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is distinguishing between "secret" and "secretive". As you can not approach within a several mile radius of the area surrounding Area 51 without driving over pressure-sensors which then send out armed men in big vans to scare you away, kind of defines the place as being "secretive". Obviously though, the fact that it is so infamous makes it very non-secret! Tachyon502 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a secret as we know it's there. It's secretive because virtually nothing is told about it by the government. BabyNuke (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OXCART image

There is an image on the page described as: "OXCART aircraft on the ramp at Groom Lake/Area 51 in 1964. There are ten aircraft in the photo; the first eight are OXCART machines, and the last two are Air Force YF-12As."

The license claims that this picture was taken by a DoD employee of a classified military installation, of then classified military aircraft. I find this dobtful, do we have verification that this was taken at Groom Lake? I must remove the image if it cant be verified. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another mystery airport

Noticed the following airport just south-west of Area 51, near the Yucca Airstrip. It's not Desert Rock Airport, which is still further south. Older satellite data does not show this airport. The current satellite image is dated 2006. Any ideas?

Link BabyNuke (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not familiar to me. But it's just an airstrip with a couple of very small buildings - there are several in the NTS and Nellis Range - not an airport per se. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I would like temporary edit priveleges. I want to add how Area 51 was portrayed in Knight Rider (2008) to the list of popular media references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Eichler (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Area 51 a central element of the new Knight Rider, or just mentioned in passing? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Area 51

This article could be of use here. MrMurph101 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, one of the editors on this article should look into it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some cites from the Times piece. There's not really that much that's a) not already there and b) is appropriate for the article. YLee (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, regretfully I agree. There's so little about this subject in mainstream media and reliable sources - but there's not much in there (about Area 51) that's not already here. It does mention NERVA at Jackass Flats, so that's worth a mention here (and Jackass isn't Area 51; we need to resist the media's temptation to label anything weird that happens in NTS as being "Area 51". Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, NERVA is already mentioned. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft

On a Las Vegas television station Bob Lazar had claimed he worked with alien spacecraft at Papoose Lake, south of Area 51.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the Bob Lazar article in the Area 51 article, which discusses Lazar and his claims extensively. Incidentally the area he claims to work at would (in the scheme of land-naming) be under Area 19, not 51. Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I can't believe there are so few references in that section... The song Faaiap de Oiad by Tool, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.146.91 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture was farmed out to another article, and then deleted, some time ago. Now people haphazardly re-add random junk, very little of it useful. To my mind the change you propose us pure junk, as is most of the "mentioned in" popular culture stuff. Who cares what songs something is tangentially mentioned in, or hinted at in passing in some minor episode of some unimportant TV show? I've long suggested that there should be a popular culture section, but that it contain only stuff that's significantly concerned with Area 51, not every dumb mention anyone happens to make. Unfortunately such suggestions (cf Talk:Area_51/Archive4#Popular_culture_lists) have mostly been ignored (no-one has expressed an opinion either in dissent or support), and so the slow agglomeration of "is mentioned in episode 194 of manga BlahBlah" junk continues. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is alian technology is using in now days specialy by area 51

most recent descovery of jet plans and super sonic plans are based on alian technology. If area 51 people are avere of alian and alian technology. why they can't tell us? i think freindship with alian is not so good and also not so bad becase alian freindship will harm us as well as un freindship so i request to be careful in dealing with these subject. And also i request that when there is need to avere please avere the public about the alian.

you faithful 58.68.8.187 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussing the article, not the general subject of Area 51, alien technology, or what mode of tinfoil underwear our Venusian masters prefer. I'm afraid we really don't know anything (never mind have reliable sources for) what alien friendship has done for us, nor what harm. The rest of your communication appears somewhat garbled; may I respectfully suggest running it through an Earth language dictionary that we terrestrians might understand it properly. Thanks, and hugs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source #13 ("Moldovan Minister of defense jailed for sale of MiG-29 to USA") is a dead link that redirects to ' http://by.ru/info/?where '. I haven't had the time to read up on all the wikipedia guidelines and editing policies yet, so I'll leave one of the many experts around here to do so. Cheers! MiloKral (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a {{dead link}} template to that section, as you're entirely right that the link is no longer functional (and hasn't been for some months). I haven't removed the information altogether, as I'm sure the same info is supported by other sources referenced in the page (Darlington, I think). When I have time I'll add specific footnotes to that effect, replacing the defunct Moldovan thing. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and citation

I found 2 websites that can Verify the sentence "known by the military pilots in the area as "The Box."", but i am not a registered user so i cannot add it on. i am also worried about the websites reliability. 72.95.224.113 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another,

'"The Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility is approximately 40 miles (64km) southwest of Groom Lake."72.95.224.113 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just copies information from an earlier version of the article72.95.224.113 (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they weren't copies, we need to base the article on reliable sources, which means respectable journalism or noted sources on the subject. Lots of web pages say what we do, and much much more, about Area 51, but they're not reliable and we can't use them to support our articles. Unfortunately, with a laxer standard, it's all too easy to form a negative-feedback "circle jerk" loop, where we would end up repeating junk from unreliable websites, and they us, and nothing is verifiable from genuinely reliable sources. I've tried very hard, for many years, to keep this article anchored on genuinely reliable sources: notable publications, respected journalists, and noted aviation experts. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball????

im sorry but is that a baseball field on the base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.141.108 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is; as the article says "...and a baseball diamond". This shouldn't come as a surprise - hundreds (perhaps a thousand) people overnight at Groom, and there's not much for them to do. Most USAF facilities contain at least basic leisure facilities; the majority contain a baseball diamond. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural reference: Area 52 in World of Warcraft

The article is protected so could someone add in the cultural references Area 52 which is a zone in Netherstorm in the video game World of Warcraft? sources: http://www.wowhead.com/?item=30542 http://www.wowwiki.com/Area_52 http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/townhall/outlandmap.html--83.196.204.216 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Transcript of Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM interview with Victor
  2. ^ Victor's Alien Interrogation Video
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Area_51&oldid=303156218"