PDA

View Full Version : Area 51 and the Lunar Landings



jrkeller
2002-Jun-05, 02:29 PM
Over the past week or so, there was much debate about Area 51, Groom Lake or whatever one wants to call it and the area's use in creating a moon hoax.

This site,

http://www.space.com/news/area51_exclusive_00421.html

has some nice photos of the area taken by the IKONOS satellite.

It seems quite obvious to me that the color of the soil, and the plant life, don't match any of the landing sites.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jun-05, 02:33 PM
Does everybody know what 2600 (http://www.2600.com/) is?

Do you know what the square root of 2600 is? It's irrational, but still...I think it is just a little more than a coincidence.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 09:09 PM
But this portion of Area 51 is not the portion used for the fake landing aerial shots.

Consider that the base is the size of Switzerland. Do you seriously think that the area in the picture you posted which shows grass and runways would have been used?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 09:21 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:09, cosmicdave wrote:
But this portion of Area 51 is not the portion used for the fake landing aerial shots.

Consider that the base is the size of Switzerland. Do you seriously think that the area in the picture you posted which shows grass and runways would have been used?


Trouble is, there's no place in Nevada, or in the rest of the US that looks like any more the moon than jrkeller's pic did. That's always been the point.

DaveC
2002-Jun-06, 09:35 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:09, cosmicdave wrote:
But this portion of Area 51 is not the portion used for the fake landing aerial shots.

Consider that the base is the size of Switzerland. Do you seriously think that the area in the picture you posted which shows grass and runways would have been used?


We don't seriously think ANY part of area 51 was used. And it wouldn't matter whether Area 51 was the size of Switzerland, Texas or Australia. The whole postulation that the lunar landings could be simulated in an earth environment is preposterous. You can't argue that because no-one (other than a select group of government stooges)has had access to Area 51 this somehow proves it was used as the stage for a moon hoax. You have to first establish that there was a hoax, and in order to do that you have to explain how it could be hoaxed. You haven't even taken the first step yet. You are desperately grasping for anything that supports your theory that there was a hoax. So far, you haven't found anything.
For most rational people this would stir some awareness that their theory might be wrong. Citing the "discovery" of a spy satellite over China (or Japan) as proof of anything related to Apollo looks like desperation to me. Spy satellites pass over China (and Japan) quite frequently. So they found one they hadn't seen before? What possible relevance does that have to anything?

CJSF
2002-Jun-06, 09:41 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:09, cosmicdave wrote:
But this portion of Area 51 is not the portion used for the fake landing aerial shots.

Consider that the base is the size of Switzerland. Do you seriously think that the area in the picture you posted which shows grass and runways would have been used?


OK,I am not any authority on Area 51, but is Dave's statement of it's size accurate? I have posted a JPEG I made superimposing Switzerland on Nevada in the USA. Does this make sense, area wise?

http://home.earthlink.net/~dancingdinos/switz_usa.jpg

CJSF

(sorry for the bad colors and compression - this was done "splash-and-dash" from work)
_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-06 17:42 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-06, 10:02 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:41, Christopher Ferro wrote:


OK,I am not any authority on Area 51, but is Dave's statement of it's size accurate? I have posted a JPEG I made superimposing Switzerland on Nevada in the USA. Does this make sense, area wise?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-06 17:42 ]</font>


He means Switzerland, PA. A nice little town, about the size of my backyard. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Seriously, the fact that you can see the strip from an adjacent mountaintop would indicate the fact that his statement is probably wrong.

The statement might come from the fact that the federal govt. owns a large percentage of the land in Nevada. So it might be that the entire Nellis reservation is that size, or it might come from combining all the federal lands.

I'm sure someone around here has the definitive answer, other than CD, of course.

Sean
2002-Jun-06, 10:37 PM
On 2002-06-05 10:33, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Does everybody know what 2600 (http://www.2600.com/) is?

Do you know what the square root of 2600 is? It's irrational, but still...I think it is just a little more than a coincidence.



I am a little confused by this post? What exactly is your point grapes? Could you clarify please? And yes i am awary of what the root of 2600 is close to I am just curious why, if that were a hidden meaning for hackers, they did not use 2601.

beskeptical
2002-Jun-07, 02:18 AM
On 2002-06-06 17:41, Christopher Ferro wrote:
OK,I am not any authority on Area 51, but is Dave's statement of it's size accurate? I have posted a JPEG I made superimposing Switzerland on Nevada in the USA. Does this make sense, area wise?

Actually, it is about that big. There is a large area of other restricted military land there that took us almost two full days of driving to circle. (Via Death Valley that is.)

But it's silly to think no one knows what is at Area 51. Cosmic Dave's assertion that there are landscapes there that are unknown to all but those who enter is not correct. It is not hard to see the whole place from a commercial flight to Las Vegas. You just can't see the saucers close up. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

We expected a lot more from Area 51. It was the spot we chose for last year's Leonids. I thought we could find some colorful characters to talk to and keep us up all night. We had a great sky. We car camped near the Little Alien. But there was no one else there!!! In the morning we met a guy and a couple who had watched the meteors the night before. The other few customers were the usual alcohol for breakfast, slot machine players you would expect in a one horse town in Nevada. The whole experience was very bizzare.

It just isn't that mysterious of a place.

Now the mysterious moving rocks in Death Valley, that was much more interesting.

CJSF
2002-Jun-07, 02:54 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:09, cosmicdave wrote:
But this portion of Area 51 is not the portion used for the fake landing aerial shots.

Consider that the base is the size of Switzerland. Do you seriously think that the area in the picture you posted which shows grass and runways would have been used?


But that's PRECISELY the images you told us to look at and to compare to Apollo landing sites. Where are the "newly" released images we can use to compare them to Apollo sites? And which Apollo site(s) are you referring to (I can't remember which one(s) you posted).

CJSF

jrkeller
2002-Jun-07, 03:41 PM
If you use some geological and topographic maps, you will see that the entire area has pretty much the same type of geology. Lots of dry streams beds and sediments (water).

Let's see, I'm sure NASA is thinking "We're making a moon hoax, so lets pick an area that in no way resembles the lunar landscape"

Might be good for a Mars hoax.

http://www.topozone.com/
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blnevadamap.htm

P.S. I'm not a geologist, so if I stated anything wrong, I'm sorry and please tell the correct terms to use.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:57 PM
'Seriously, the fact that you can see the strip from an adjacent mountaintop would indicate the fact that his statement is probably wrong.'

The Us Government bought up hundreds of KM of land a few years ago to specifically stop people from doing this. Freedom Ridge was closed in 1995. The restricted airspace around Area 51 covers a rectangle of 23 x 25 miles, with Groom Lake in its center. That is an area of 575 square miles, which is commonly referred to as the Box by military pilots. Not even they are allowed to enter that air space.

The entire Nellis Ranges, including Area 51, the Tonopah Test Range (TTR), the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the bombing and gunnery ranges cover an area of 5,200 square miles north of Las Vegas. The Nevada Test Site alone covers about 1,600 square miles, partially contaminated with radiation from nuclear tests.

The closest view spot now is Tikaboo Peak, about 26 miles east of the base. There are other view spots, like Reveille Peak north-west of Rachel, from where you look right down the two runways at Groom Lake. But that spot is over 45 miles from the base and you need good binoculars and a very clear day to see anything.

'But that's PRECISELY the images you told us to look at and to compare to Apollo landing sites. Where are the "newly" released images we can use to compare them to Apollo sites? And which Apollo site(s) are you referring to (I can't remember which one(s) you posted).'

Again a complete misqoute. If you bothered to read the threads discussing Area 51, you'll see that I am still trying to track the pictures down which are allegedly taken at area 51 to simulate aerial views of the Moons surface.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-08, 05:22 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:57, cosmicdave wrote:
I am still trying to track the pictures down which are allegedly taken at area 51 to simulate aerial views of the Moons surface.

But the color and consistency of the soil are simply wrong. And yes, soil comparisons could be made. Soil mechanics studies (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Experiments_SMI.html) were done on all six Apollo landings.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-08, 07:21 PM
If the Nevada site was used for nuclear testing, is this not a good enough reason for keeping everyone out? I can just imagine the Law Suits if they didn't.

'I went hiking over in Nevada and the next week all my hair and teeth fell out. The Gov't should do something to stop folks just wandering through contaminated land...' - If the Gov't hadn't stopped folks wandering at will over radioactive ground.

beskeptical
2002-Jun-08, 09:21 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:57, cosmicdave wrote:
Again a complete misqoute. If you bothered to read the threads discussing Area 51, you'll see that I am still trying to track the pictures down which are allegedly taken at area 51 to simulate aerial views of the Moons surface.

You will be tracking for a very long time. It would have been easier to make the film in a movie studio than to use any landscape from NV.

jrkeller said, "If you use some geological and topographic maps, you will see that the entire area has pretty much the same type of geology. Lots of dry streams beds and sediments (water)."

Been there, seen that.