Slashdot Mirror


The Skylab-Area 51 Incident

IZ Reloaded writes "The Space Review has an interesting story written by Dwayne Day about the 1974 incident when astronauts onboard Skylab took photos of a facility that did not exist in the US called Area 51. From The Space Review: What the memo indicates is that there was a difference between the way the civilian agencies of the US government and the military agencies looked at their roles. NASA had ties to the military, but it was clearly a civilian agency. And although the reasons why NASA officials felt that the photo should be released are unknown, the most likely explanation is that NASA officials did not feel that the civilian agency should conceal any of its activities. Many of NASA's relations with other organizations and foreign governments were based on the assumption that NASA did not engage in spying and did not conceal its activities."

334 comments

  1. A Closer Look by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Good story, but it would have been interesting to see the actual picture taken by the astronauts in 1974, rather than the Geological Survey pic taken in 1968.

    By the way, if you're interested in a higher-resolution look at Area 51, just point your Google Earth to 37 d 14' N, 115 d 49' W.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:A Closer Look by metternich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Many foreign miltaries are complaining that google details their installations just a little too well...

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    2. Re:A Closer Look by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. The photo is still classified, even if the fact that it exists is not.

    3. Re:A Closer Look by christian.elliott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article states the the picture taken by those astronauts wasn't of high resolution, therefore nothing could really be seen from the photo (other than the fact that it was there). It was more the fact that the photo itself was taken against the rules laid out and that they were able to take the photo and see where it was.

    4. Re:A Closer Look by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess public space imagery matters if your biggest military rivals don't have their own satellites. Our biggest rival in 1974 was in space before we were, so I don't see what made this such an issue.

    5. Re:A Closer Look by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

      actually, you just need to enter 'area 51' in the search entry box.

    6. Re:A Closer Look by JasonBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well fie on them - Google doesn't own any satellites last I checked.

      If you want to buy sub 1-metre resolution satellite pics just go the SPOT consortium in
      France. Any interested parties will BUY their data at FAR greater resolution than what
      Google supplies.

      Meh

    7. Re:A Closer Look by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 1

      ... or just type in 'Area 51'

    8. Re:A Closer Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like 37.25 N, 115.80 W on Google Maps.

      (FYI, the roadmap is greyed out, but the satellite imagery is still there.)

    9. Re:A Closer Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      37.233333 -115.816667 is the decimal equivalent.

    10. Re:A Closer Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive my ignorance if it is something obvious, but what is that giant white patch in the Satt photos of Area 51 on google maps?

    11. Re:A Closer Look by srobert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't even have to know the coordinates. Just type in "Area 51" on the Google Earth Search tool.
      I did this before but now, I think, the images are even more Hi Res than they were a few months ago.

    12. Re:A Closer Look by DaFrog · · Score: 1

      Or just fly to "Area 51"

    13. Re:A Closer Look by mystic_mushroom · · Score: 1

      I just checked out SPOT and they say that the best resolution they offer is 2.5m. Is there anywhere that does actually offer sub 1-metre resolution?

    14. Re:A Closer Look by vought · · Score: 1

      If you want to buy sub 1-metre resolution satellite pics just go the SPOT consortium in
      France. Any interested parties will BUY their data at FAR greater resolution than what
      Google supplies.


      Do they have Dick Cheney's house? Because a friend told me he has really nice roof tiles...and I, uh, can't quite make 'em out in Google Earth.

      (Waves at the NSA.)

    15. Re:A Closer Look by yorkpaddy · · Score: 1

      My guess would be a salt flat or dry lake bed. Probably a salt flat, like Bonneville.

      --
      "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
    16. Re:A Closer Look by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I thought the article was implying that area 51 was actually cut out of all the images, and thus no one has it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    17. Re:A Closer Look by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1

      Of if you just want to paste it into the Google Earth search field:

      37.24151169184086 -115.8184358209776

      --
      Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    18. Re:A Closer Look by BrackishWater · · Score: 0

      ...or just type in "area 51"
      hello, this is Google we're talking about ;-)

    19. Re:A Closer Look by robolemon · · Score: 1
      If you want to buy sub 1-metre resolution satellite pics just go the SPOT consortium in France. Any interested parties will BUY their data at FAR greater resolution than what Google supplies.
      I disagree. Why spend money and leave a paper trail when you can anonymously look at data using something like Tor? Interested parties would only buy better resolution if they needed that level of detail.
      --

      I design user interfaces for a free network management application,

    20. Re:A Closer Look by skarphace · · Score: 1

      Well fie on them - Google doesn't own any satellites last I checked.

      Actually, google does own a satellite. I believe they got it when they purchased Keyhole.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    21. Re:A Closer Look by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that in this day and age it is their responsibility to conceal from satellites anything they don't want to be seen, otherwise it's fair game.

    22. Re:A Closer Look by d_p · · Score: 1

      What are you taking about? SPOT-5 is 2.5m resolution. The only sub-meter commerical imagery available right now is from Quickbird-2. Anything else is from aerial platforms or old satellite Russian imagery.

    23. Re:A Closer Look by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do they have Dick Cheney's house? Because a friend told me he has really nice roof tiles...and I, uh, can't quite make 'em out in Google Earth.

      (Waves at the NSA.)

      Hehe, I spent all day Saturday running new phone cable for a co-worker whose DSL wouldn't work. I found cloth wiring that dated to at least the 20s.

      So I'm telling this story to a friend (who is also a telco weenie) and marveling at how the POTS service kept working on those degraded lines. I said "Yeah, you just can't kill POTUS, it's bulletproof". Obviously I meant to say "POTS" and not "POTUS" ;)

      I kinda wonder how much fuel that NSA satellite had to burn to get a better read on my conversation that day :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:A Closer Look by michaelper22 · · Score: 1

      Yep, You can get much better views of Area 51 from Google Earth. That picture in the article from The Space Review in the link mentioned doesn't look to great, especialy because it's plain B&W.

    25. Re:A Closer Look by skotte · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.pictometry.com/ does some neat stuff at 6 inches-per-pixel. the downsides are: access to the photos comes at a quite expensive price-tag, and the images are very oblique (which is actually not a downside at all, and in fFact extremely remarkably useful)

      in case you were wondering, 6 inches per pixel, covering about half of the US, requires about 2 petabytes of storage.

    26. Re:A Closer Look by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Groom Lake" (AKA Area 51) is a dry lake bed.

    27. Re:A Closer Look by Kesch · · Score: 1

      I am currently building a giant tin-foil hat for my house. They shall never get me. I also have a tin-foil umbrella for when I go outside. You can never be too careful when THEY are watching you.

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    28. Re:A Closer Look by Syberghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess public space imagery matters if your biggest military rivals don't have their own satellites. Our biggest rival in 1974 was in space before we were, so I don't see what made this such an issue.

      Your biggest rivals are not your only rivals, and what they think they know may not be 100% correct.

    29. Re:A Closer Look by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that in this day and age it is their responsibility to conceal from satellites anything they don't want to be seen, otherwise it's fair game.

      Fortunately, I don't think "they" care much what you'd argue. Are you going to decide what methods of concealment they use too? What if they want to conceal it by pointing a really bright LASER at your imager? Or maybe, they want to conceal it by sending a couple of MIBs to "eliminate" the problem? Any of those alternatives are much simpler than putting a tent over an airforce base.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    30. Re:A Closer Look by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Any other sources? That April fool's thread isn't exactly reliable. :P

    31. Re:A Closer Look by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, a large portion of Google's images (at least of the US) come from USGS aerial photos. In fact, you can look up higher resolution files of the same photos on at least one other site that I know of (terraserver.com).

    32. Re:A Closer Look by dimension6 · · Score: 1

      What's amazing is how far out you can zoom and still see the airstrip. That's quite a beast.

    33. Re:A Closer Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the given coordinates doesn't work for your Google Earth just try this format:
      37 14' N, 115 49' W

  2. Area 51 is not Unidentified by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Area 51 on google maps

    I watched a History Channel documentary on Area 51 recently titled 'History's Mysteries: Area 51: Beyond Top Secret,' it was very interesting.
    Link: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id= 73034

    Interesting Area 51 facts:
    Area 51 has the longest runways in the world.
    Area 51 was the test site for the U2, SR-71, B2, and F-117 aircraft.
    Area 51 is heavily guarded, and can only be seen from a mountaintop 24 miles away with a high-powered telescope.
    You can scavenge aircraft wreckage from around its perimeter with a metal detector and sometimes are able to see the craft name and manufacturer on some of the pieces.
    Area 51 employees bury most of the wreckage of crashed aircraft on its site in order for them not to end up in public scrap yards.
    Area 51 has captured Russian Mig and other Russian aircraft which they flew and tested.
    Area 51 was first officially acknowledged to exist in 1995 due to lawsuit from some of its employees against the US government.
    Area 51 has the largest collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft in our Solar System (okay, I just made that last one up.)

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Informative
      Area 51 has captured Russian Mig and other Russian aircraft which they flew and tested.

      One small quibble.
      Not necessarily 'captured'. We were given several MiG's and Sukoi's in 1990/91 by the German AF, after they merged with the former East German AF.

    2. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Demon-Xanth · · Score: 1

      I had an instructor that was in the Air Force and had a friend that worked in area 51. He made the following statement:

      "What is there is man made, but he'll die before he says what it is."

      --
      If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
    3. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      I believe 'captured' was the word they used on the History Channel documentary.

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by kannibal_klown · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not necessarily 'captured'. We were given several MiG's and Sukoi's in 1990/91 by the German AF, after they merged with the former East German AF.


      While I've heard we were given some MiGs in the past, I also heard this rumor once.

      That at once point (probably a while ago) we did "capture" a MiG or whatever. I think it went along the lines that he had to land for mechanical failure or we forced him to land or something.

      In any case, what makes the story stand out is that we eventaully sent the MiG back in several boxes (ie, after we'd taken it apart to see what it had).

      Any idea if this is true?
    5. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by ptomblin · · Score: 2, Informative

      They had MiGs there long before the reunification of Germany. Many were presents from the Israelis who captured them in their various wars. Some came after Israel signed the peace deal with Egypt - Egypt got modern western aircraft, and the US got a bunch of their old Soviet equipment. And some where flat-out purchased from non-aligned nations.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    6. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Area 51 has the largest collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft in our Solar System (okay, I just made that last one up.)

      Quite right. As if anyone thinks the government keeps the alien stuff at Groom Lake anymore, now that every UFO geek in the world knows about it. Nah. All the alien kit is now at the old Soviet base on Farside, which was handed over to the US after the cancellation of the Buran programme left the Russians unable to effectively maintain it.

      All there is at Area 51 these days is a lot of secrecy and security, the kind of secrecy that gets you more attention than you would by just operating openly, and from time to time they send up some trippy lightshows to distract the conspiracy theorists from what's really going on.

      (I fully expect to see this post quoted verbatim on godlikeproductions within a week. They love this kind of stuff.)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ours · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I've read, when the US had "obtained" equipment from the Soviets (and vice-versa), they had to return it if the other side knew of it and could prove it. In the time they had to return it they would certainly pick it appart and gather as much data as they could before sending it back in whatever state they are willing to lie that the aircraft was when it "crashlanded" or "got trashed during shipping". I guess they had to return the vehicules otherwise it would have been considered and act of war. PS: Planes where also obtained by the way of defecting pilots. Whether the planes where returned or not is not certain, I'm guessing that they where.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    8. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Roj+Blake · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of Blake's 7 when Blake risks everything, and gets Gan killed, to destroy Control. Only to find it was moved 30 years prior.

      (Blake asks where Control was moved to)
      TRAVIS: Even I don't know that. But it's safe and secure and will remain so while those who seek to destroy us believe it's here. You see, it's the great illusion, Blake. You give substance and credibility to an empty room, and the real thing becomes undetectable, virtually invisible.

      --
      Auron may be different, Cally, but on Earth it is considered ill-mannered to kill your friends while committing suicide.
    9. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'were' does not have have a silent 'h'.

    10. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      As I tried to zoom in closer, Google told me "We are sorry, but we don't have imagery at this zoom level for this region"....considering Google can zoom down to the window of my office building, and they don't have anything better then that!? Uhuh...yea, no space aliens my butt!

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    11. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      >at once point (probably a while ago) we did "capture" a MiG or whatever

      Yes, there was a Russian pilot who defected by flying his jet to Japan.

      * On 6 September 1976, a Soviet pilot, Lieutenant Viktor Belenko, decided to defect to the West. He flew his aircraft, a Mikoyan "MiG-25" interceptor, from Siberia to Japan. The "Foxbat", as it was known in the West, was one of the most advanced aircraft fielded by the USSR to that time, and it had figured prominently in the nightmares of Western military officials.

      http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25.html

      There was also this program that attempt to steal a combat-ready Russian MiG-15 Fighter for one hundred thousand dollars

      http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html

      The canopy opened, and from the plane stepped a cocky young lieutenant in a blue flying suit. While the American pilots watched in open-mouthed wonder, the Red pilot tore up a photograph of North Korean dictator Kim il-Sung, and handed his pistol to a nearby F-86 pilot in a jeep on the way to the 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing Headquarters. Early reports were that he had torn up a picture of his girlfriend, but North Korean pilots were not allowed to have girlfriends during the war. They were warned that many girls were South Korean spies.

      After a few moments of shock, the defector was rushed to intelligence while his MiG Fighter was placed in a well-guarded hangar. The North Korean Lieutenant, No Kum-Sok, explained his motives to the officers assigned to interrogate him.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    12. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      That at once point (probably a while ago) we did "capture" a MiG or whatever. I think it went along the lines that he had to land for mechanical failure or we forced him to land or something.

      Sep 6, 1976. Lt. Victor Belenko defected with a MiG-25 to Japan. We inspected it in depth, and sent it back. In boxes.

    13. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      >Interesting Area 51 facts: "facts" is more like it.

      Area 51 has the longest runways in the world. Well, perhaps, if you count a dry lake bed as a runway. Many other places have longer concrete runways:

      • Vostochny (Russia) 16404 ft
      • Gavia (Bravil) 16295 ft
      • Upington (South Africa) 16076 ft
      • Harare (Zimbabwae) 15502 ft
      • Kinshasha Ndjili (Congo) 15420 ft
      • Mafikeng (South Africa) 15158 ft
      • Hawange National Park (Zimbabwe) 15091 ft
      • Edwards AFB (USA) 15013 ft
      • Denver 16,000 ft (proposed)

      >Area 51 is heavily guarded, and can only be seen from a mountaintop 24 miles away with a >high-powered telescope.

      Nope, you can go to many a web site that has 1 and 2 meter resolution photos of the place.

      >You can scavenge aircraft wreckage from around its perimeter with a metal detector and sometimes are able to see the craft name and manufacturer on some of the pieces. Let's do the math: Area 51 has a perimiter of about 32 miles, an area of about 60 square miles. Let's assume if you can still scavenge aircraft parts, given reasonable patience, there has to be a part every 1000 feet. Also let's assume a crashed plane throws parts as far as 500 feet. That means ther have been about SIX THOUSAND airplane crashes in and around the place. That sounds kinda high, by a factor of at least 100 times.

      >Area 51 employees bury most of the wreckage of crashed aircraft on its site in order for them >not to end up in public scrap yards.

      There are no other alternatives? The only two are: bury or take to a public scrap yard? What about those little pickup-truck sized smelters they use at airplane scrap yards?

      >Area 51 has captured Russian Mig and other Russian aircraft which they flew and tested.

      "Captured" is hardly correct. We've been given some by the Israelis, and at least three from Russian and North Korean pilots. I don't think the US has actually "captured" any planes in the last five decades or so.

      >Area 51 was first officially acknowledged to exist in 1995 due to lawsuit from some of its >employees against the US government.

      I guess it depends onwhat you mean by "acknowledged" and by whom. Several books mentioned the place long before then.

      >Area 51 has the largest collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft in our >Solar System

      Well, that part *is* correct. Zero is the largest number in the set { 0 }.

      -->

    14. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      It depends on how the aircraft was obtained. We have gotten a number of aircraft from the Israelis that they captured during their wars with their neighbors, others we outright purchased. Many of the aircraft used for Have Doughnut were obtained from the Israelis, they were later returned.

      Of the known programs for testing Migs, Have Doughnut, Have Drill, and Have Ferry only one aircraft was obtained via clandestine methods. At least that we known of. The US still keeps it a secret what nations we obtain the aircraft.

    15. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      So by your logic since I can't zoom in to the smallest resolution on my house I'm harboring aliens as well then right?

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    16. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Funny

      So by your logic since I can't zoom in to the smallest resolution on my house I'm harboring aliens as well then right?

      Yes, but don't worry, the sarcism police will catch you soon enough.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    17. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were also a few defectors from the middle east, China and from the Korean war who flew their MiGs to US or allied bases. These were before the German exchange.

    18. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They get their Russian torpedoes (skvall) from Canada. We get them from... bribing Russian navy officers.

    19. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      My parents live in Sarasota, Fl, and I can't get a decent satellite resolution there, either. But, of course, the reasons for and the area 51 data might be different...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    20. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are too many problems with your statement.

      For one thing, it's in the form of the classic "friend of a friend" urban myth.

      For another thing, of course that's what a responsible Area 51 staffer would say, whether it was true or not.

      For another thing, it's entirely possible that the alleged staffer was not cleared to know about the non-man-made things that may or may not be there, and so may not actually know what he's talking about.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    21. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      As well as North Koreans from the 60's, 70's and 80's as I recall.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [i]Area 51 has the largest collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft in our Solar System (okay, I just made that last one up.)[/i]

      Heh... try "Area 51 has as large a collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft as any place in our Solar System".

    23. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by pmancini · · Score: 1

      A fellow from the FMSO (Forign Military Studies Office) told me that in the past they had to capture Russian equipment but today they buy it on the open market. He had some cool videos, one of which was when they were testing to see how high a berm would keep out T-80/90 tanks. I saw one climb up and over a 14' berm, drop down the other side and was still in fighting condition!!!

      Area-51 is where they test all our new stuff. It would be neat if they did have extraterrestrial craft but if we had such technology, why would we still be dependent on oil? Surely something that effective and fuel efficent would yield up some gains after 50+ years of reverse engineering, no?

    24. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Area 51 has the longest runways in the world. Well, perhaps, if you count a dry lake bed as a runway. Many other places have longer concrete runways

      You know, for someone who knows you can look at it from above, you appear to never have actually done so.

      It quite clearly has a concrete runway extending across that dried lake bed. There are even lines painted on it, and there are X's painted on it at 1000 foot intervals.

      According to Google Earth, that length of concrete is slightly more than 24,000 feet, with 13,000 of it paved on normal ground and 11,000 paved on the lake bed.

      However, looking that the markings of the arrow, and the fact the X's mark off 1000 feet from the arrow, and the fact there is sand that has blown over the edge at one end, it looks like only the 18,000 feet past the arrow are used, about 11,000 feet on normal ground and 7000 feet on the lake bed. Which still beats everything else. (And, on top of that, it has an unpaved 2500 foot area that is clearly for planes that go off the end.)

      Now, there are two other runways of 10,000 and 11,000 feet, respectively, that are merely outlines on a lakebed. And there is a 14,000 foot runway on normal groud, and something that's 7500 feet that might be a runway, or might just be a taxiway, I can't tell. (There's a plane parked there on Google Earth! It looks like a standard airplane, but has something weird going on with a wing.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Area 51 on google maps

      Look at the farm to the north. Now that guy lives in the boonies!

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    26. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by AJWM · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be neat if they did have extraterrestrial craft but if we had such technology, why would we still be dependent on oil?

      A severe shortage of dilithium crystals.

      Also, the naquada was all mined out several thousand years ago...

      --
      -- Alastair
    27. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      Well, perhaps, if you count a dry lake bed as a runway.

      Since that's what they use it for, a la Edwards, I'd say counting it is pretty appropriate. Why pave something that's aolready perfect?

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    28. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      Look at the farm to the north. Now that guy lives in the boonies!

      Either that, or he is playing Pac-Man with aliens.

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    29. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Guerrillero · · Score: 1

      2m resolution photo available here:
      http://www.lasvegasnow.com/area51/Area51-072503-LG .jpg

    30. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you went to Rachel, NV first and scanned over to area 51. You can just type Area 51 in as a search term and it will take you there :)

    31. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      A very interesting book was written about the first MIG-25 to fall into U.S. hands. The book follows the life of the pilot as he defects, and eventually returns to the Soviet Union. The book is called, "Mig Pilot".

      I found a page where western acquisition of Soviet and Chinese aircraft are listed:

      http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/Defections.html

      The "Mig Pilot" episode is listed for 1976.

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    32. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      "Captured" is hardly correct. We've been given some by the Israelis, and at least three from Russian and North Korean pilots. I don't think the US has actually "captured" any planes in the last five decades or so.

      Well...there were some 'captured' on (and apparently in) the ground in Iraq. Which is pretty much the only way to 'capture' an aircraft, without the pilots cooperation. Parked on the ground when you take over the airbase.

    33. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Neufrank · · Score: 1

      Regarding the only interesting aircraft (the Fulcrum) I guess that was not completely correct. Besides a 18 months inspection period after the German reunification of one aircraft, all 20 MiG29A and 4 MiG29UB went 1991 in service with the German Air Force. One crashed in the late 90s and the remaining were given (i.e. sold for 1 EURO) to Poland in 2004...

      Frank

      (see http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRHeft04/FR H0404/FR0404c.htm )

    34. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by tor528 · · Score: 0

      More Facts about Area 51:
      There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Area 51 allows to live.
      Onions do not make Area 51 cry. Area 51 makes onions shit themselves.
      Area 51 once walked down the street with a massive erection. There were no survivors.
      When Area 51 goes to donate blood, it declines the syringe, and instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.
      Area 51 can divide by zero.
      Area 51 is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
      Area 51 can project its astral self through walls and spy on its enemies.

      that's right, Area 51 = Vin Diesel.

      --
      If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
    35. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by AustinSlacker · · Score: 1

      We have had "samples" of russian military aircraft for many decades. Long before the unification of the Germanys. Sometimes we even got our hands on prototypes that they were still testing! Not models, not pictures, real actual prototypes. I don't know how we got 'em but we had them. Don't ask me how I know, I just know.

    36. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents live in Sarasota, Fl, and I can't get a decent satellite resolution there, either. But, of course, the reasons for and the area 51 data might be different...

      The USAF is harbouring aliens, while your parents are aliens?

    37. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Tongo · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the "captured" Russian MIGs usually came from Soviet pilots who were defecting to the United States. They would fly their planes to US/US Allied bases and turn them over in return for a life in the US.

    38. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      }It quite clearly has a concrete runway extending across that dried lake bed. There are even lines painted on it, and there are X's painted on it at 1000 foot intervals.

      You can tell the difference between concrete and graded lake bed from 100 miles up? Wow.

      As to painted lines and such, dry lake bed takes paint very nicely.

      My source? The 6-million-$ man opening credits.

    39. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by umbrellasd · · Score: 1
      Yes, there was a Russian pilot who defected by flying his jet to Japan.
      And his name was Clint Eastwood!
    40. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yes, I can quite clearly see it is paved. How? Well, the starting of the landing area is made of square slabs that look to be about 25 feet across. Rather an odd way to paint, but exactly what you'd do if you wanted to make a touchdown point that is stronger than the rest of the pavement.

      And, more to the point, the rest of the concrete is in crappy condition, with cracks all over it, cracks that are not reflected in the lakebed. Ah, but you say, that's merely the lakebed cracking up.

      Not so fast. The cracks follow the line of the concrete, or are perpendicular to it, exactly like real concrete cracks. If you head back to our friend the landing pad, and backwards up the unused part of the runway, you can see a crack right down the middle of the runway that runs for 3000 feet within a foot or two of the painted center line. It even zigs a few feet in places due to other cracks and gets back on course. That is, frankly, an astonishing coincidence, or it's that the damn peak of the road has cracked, exactly like what happens to every other poorly-paved road. (Remember, this is the unused part.)

      Ah, but maybe the paint is merely very crappy. Well, no, paint doesn't crack enough that you can see it from orbit., and if we saw through the paint we'd be seeing white lake bed not dark areas. And, just as oddly, there are places where markings are clearly painted over the cracks.

      I'll willing to admit I can't prove there aren't cracks on the lake bed we can't see, but the pattern of the cracks is the pattern of cracking concrete.

      Seriously. Either you are arguing because you haven't looked at it, or you're arguing just to be arguing. No one can possibly look at that and think it's paint.

      Of course, this is area 51 we're talking about. They could just be painting the cracks in.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    41. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      You got me. I didnt look CLOSELY at the pictures because:
      • The pics are specified as having 1 and 2 meter resolution.
      • Cracks, expansion joints, runway lights, bots dots, are all much smaller than 1 or two meters wide.

      The size of the blocks means NOTHING re it being a runway:

      • There are several methods of laying runways. Perhaps the block areas were done by one "secret" qualified contractor. Or that area was too small to justify bringing in the continuous laying machine. Or it could be anything.
      • Secret planes tend to not be of the B-36, or 747 categories whick might require special runways.
      • In fact, it's in Ben Rich's book-- to land a C-135 at "the Ranch" they had to let some air out of the tires in order to spread out the load.
      • Thick concrete is often laid down in several layers, as to not require water-cooling during the curing process. So the need for thickness in no way implies a smallblock size.
      • You're going to put the thickest concrete at the END of a runway?

      Now I could be completely wrong on this, but using "common sense" I don't see proof of concrete. Not that it matters in any way in the slightest!

    42. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Cracks, expansion joints, runway lights, bots dots, are all much smaller than 1 or two meters wide.

      So, your assertation is...I'm hallucinating? Or have you still not looked at it Google Earth, as opposed to Google Maps, where you indeed cannot see enough detail?

      Incidentally, if you go and look at the parking area at 37o14'27.22 115o49'00.75 (The one with three tractor trailers in it.), you will not only notice it's exactly the same color as the entension to the runway, which is a weird coincidence, but they have exactly the same type of lines visible, because, yes, it is cracks. This is because the 'extra' part of the runway was, indeed, paved, although apparently with crappy parking pavement instead of real stuff. Go north of that over some buildings and you'll see the same 25 foot square concrete slabs used at the touchdown place.

      However, I'm not even going to respond to you until you've actually demonstrated that you have looked at it in Google Earth, and have answered the simple question: Roughly how long are the painted dashes on the runway? Because the only way you could be answering like you are is if you haven't looked at it via that.

      The size of the blocks means NOTHING re it being a runway:

      What is your point here? The question was 'Is it paved?'. We know it's a runway, unless they've set up some sort of dragstrip at area 51, or just like building roads that don't go anywhere. (In fact, the long one stops short of access road by maybe 70 feet, so it would be a spectularly pointless 2 mile long drive.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    43. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by TimeCr0ss · · Score: 1

      Not one soul ever remember's the A-12 was developed and tested there... That craft remains one of the most classified aircraft we've ever built. You thought he SR-71 was bad?

    44. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      I'm going to be patient here, because we haev an obvious miscommunication in part. I repeatedly mentioned the www.fas.org web site, with its 2 and 1 meter resolution images as my source of information. Where you got google earth as my reference is beyond me.

      Now about those cracks. Let me refresh your memory:

      • High-performance airplanes need to have thin wings.
      • Thin wings and tricycle landing gear imply landing gear and tires in the wings.
      • That implies thin, flat, smallish tires.
      • The thinner and smaller the tire, the more internal pressure the tire must have to support the weight of the plane.
      • So we're talking rock-hard tires, inflated to HUNDREDS of PSI. With little flex distance in the sidewalls.
      • That setup requires a VERY SMOOTH runway, with like, no irregularities larger than about 1 centimeter.
      • If you can see a crack from an aerial photo-it's likely to be a whole lot more than 1 cm.
      • Remember the Concorde tire that ran over a relatively small piece of metal? Boom. Your car tire would have no problem deforming and flowing over that kind of obstacle. High-pressure tires don't have the same ability. KabBoom!

      A few more refreshers:

      • Every see a runway or highway being built? What;'s the first thing they do? Build a base.
      • That means several feet of gravel.
      • But out in the boondocks, in an area that has never been scoured by glaciers, and has no flowing rivers, and instead has been subject to eons of slow erosion, resulting in a surface coverd by hundreds of feet of fine sediment, gravel just isnt available, like not for hundreds of miles.
      • And at a secret installation, it would not be prudent to have hundreds of 18-wheel dumptrucks going hundreds of miles down the interstate and turning off down a cowpath for another 30 miles.
      • And the govt and military moves people around every few years, so nobody cares much about building things that last.
      • So it's quite likely they didnt lay down ANY base below the runway.
      • After a few years of spring rains, which turn the lakebed to cream-of-mushroom soup for a few months, funny, the concrete starts to crack.
      • Ergo, it's no longer a runway. At least not for anything delicate, or untested at high gross weights, or often having to land unexpectedly with high fuel loads.

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but : If you can see cracks from the air, it isn't a runway for experimental aircraft.

      It might be passable for aircraft designed for rough landings, like a C-130, C-5A, Twin Otter. Not for a B-58, U-2, XB-70.

    45. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      And your point is what, exactly?

      The assertation was the Area 51's runway was, absurdly, 'painted on', and, hence, didn't count as a real runway. (Why they would paint the whole runway area, even the shoulders, instead of just the ends, like they did on the two runways that are actually painted on, is beyond me.)

      You agree it's not, and, what's more, you agree with my 'crappy concrete' theory, except you claim it's the base that's crappy instead. The concrete is also clearly a different color, and, hence I suspect it also made of different materials, but that's not really important.

      The important thing is that it does, in fact, have the longest (concrete) runway in the world. It might not work for experimental crafts, but I rather suspect most of the other contenders for that position would not either.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    46. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      My point is that it's kind of a metaphysical statement to call it a "runway" today if it maybe WAS a usable runway for a year or three, 50 years ago. Regards, A_H

  3. Coral Cache by ickeicke · · Score: 1, Informative

    Better sooner then later, we don't want the server to crash as well as the UFOs, do we? http://www.thespacereview.com.nyud.net:8090/articl e/531/1/

    --
    Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
  4. i find it funny that the u.s goverment always denies that stuff excists but then the
    thing crashes down to earth or a picture is taken of it.... and all of a sudden it
    does excist !

    Julien. http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/

    1. Re:funny by wolenczak · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just like weapons of mass destruction... oh wait.

    2. Re:funny by g0at · · Score: 1

      Yeah... or the corollary: the U.S. government insists that something exists, until it is acceptably proven that it doesn't, in which case they change their tune. (weapons in Iraq anyone?)

      -b

    3. Re:funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious.

  5. A fun little theory by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody else think that the only reason the government still denies the existance of area 51 is to keep people looking at it? Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? /conspiracy theory

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:A fun little theory by njfuzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Area 51 is the site that publically "doesn't exist". Probably a good way to draw attention away from more classified places.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    2. Re:A fun little theory by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Hey, update your knowledge. The government admitted its existance in 1995.

      Sure, nothing *really* has changed, because they didn't really say anything else, so most of what we have is rumor and speculation, and it's almost as secretive as it was before (there was some interesting speculation in a Popular Science article that part of the reason they acknowledged Area 51 was because they moved most recent test programs elsewhere; I think namely White Sands and somewhere else), but it DOES exist.

    3. Re:A fun little theory by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anybody else think that the only reason the government still denies the existance of area 51 is to keep people looking at it? Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? /conspiracy theory

      They also argue that when the government fails to confirm the obvious, it both undermines governmental authority and legitimacy, and contributes to wild speculation, such as aliens and soundstages in underground hangars at Area 51.

      Part of inteligence is counter inteligence. If you make enough "noise", the truth will be hidden amongst so much wild speculation no one will be able to figure out what actually goes on there. It probably also serves as a nice decoy for other facilities.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:A fun little theory by Rob+Carr · · Score: 4, Funny

      It works! No one ever talks about Area 50!

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    5. Re:A fun little theory by oscartheduck · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's because they don't want you looking at Area 52, which is just up the road aways and is run by Centauri.

      --
      How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
    6. Re:A fun little theory by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because nothing really all that exciting is going on at Groom anymore. They probably still fly borrowed aircraft some are probably even made by our "friends" like Mirages. Keeping Groom secret keeps everybody looking at that base while the really interesting stuff is going on at Dougway.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:A fun little theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The fun stuff happens at Area 42.

      -----
      A word from the Anonymous Coward 'which' succesfully confirmed
      not to be a script by guessing the word 'revival'.

    8. Re:A fun little theory by tepzepi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I can't stand it anymore... it "existence" and "exists" and "exist" IANAGN, but please :-)

    9. Re:A fun little theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Area 51 is a red herring. All of the REALLY good stuff is at Area 52.

    10. Re:A fun little theory by wx327 · · Score: 1

      Lisa: Area 51!? I found Area 51!
      Guard: No m'am this is Area 51A
      Lisa: Grr....well, um, i'm kind of lost, can you tell me where I am?
      Guard: I'm sorry, the location of this location is classified!

    11. Re:A fun little theory by doublem · · Score: 1

      Dougway?

      Where's that?

      Got a link to some photos / Google Maps???

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    12. Re:A fun little theory by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      The fun stuff happens at Area 42.

      Au contraire ... the most excellent stuff is at Area 69 ...

    13. Re:A fun little theory by b1t+r0t · · Score: 4, Funny
      Keeping Groom secret keeps everybody looking at that base while the really interesting stuff is going on at Dougway.

      What's Dougway? (about 250 pounds! *rimshot*)

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    14. Re:A fun little theory by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Anybody else think that the only reason the government still denies the existance of area 51 is to keep people looking at it? Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? /conspiracy theory

      I always thought that a super secret government base would be like one of GI Joe's Cobra: you know in a mountain side with a big door that opens up only when craft are entering/exiting and only some local homes around the area where base employees live. I find that Area 51 is boring that it is viewable from space at all. I'd hope that our government has spent a few billion actually stealthing the entire airfield rather than "securing" an area where the general public and foreign intel keeps its eyes on.

    15. Re:A fun little theory by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn that Robert Preston was dead... or maybe the government has just been hiding him.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    16. Re:A fun little theory by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I told you I would have to kill you.. It is Dugway typo on my part. It is near Hill AFB and has been used in the past for the testing of biological and chemical weapons. Also Hill is getting F22s...
      It is also where Nasa has been recovering some of it's space probes.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:A fun little theory by yetdog · · Score: 1

      Popular Science got it wrong. They took a wrong turn down a road in the Nevada Desert and concluded that A51 was 'moved.' Google on it and you'll find what I mean.

    18. Re:A fun little theory by Chubby_C · · Score: 1

      best place to hide something is right in plain sight

      --
      - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
    19. Re:A fun little theory by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1
      Au contraire ... the most excellent stuff is at Area 69 ...
      Yeah, that's where they keep the jetpack built with alien technology and the cultures of alien tissue.
    20. Re:A fun little theory by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Becouse they moved the "artifacts" a long time ago. No one looks for where they are now since the government keeps saying they are definately not stored at area-51, thereby convincing everyone that they really are.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    21. Re:A fun little theory by seededfury · · Score: 1

      ...like that mountain in colorado where the store the stargate :)

    22. Re:A fun little theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nonononono.



      Area 52 is under Cheyenne Mountain, where they stashed the Stargate. Don't you watch tv???????????????

    23. Re:A fun little theory by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 1

      Dugway proving grounds in Utah. Many people I grew up with's parents worked there. Mostly just a dumping ground for chemicals and agents that other states have managed to avoid getting dumped in their backyeards :)

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    24. Re:A fun little theory by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Probably but that isn't any fun...
      I can not believe that my post got modded up to interesting. It was meant to be funny.... Scary..

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:A fun little theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of inteligence is counter inteligence (sic). If you make enough "noise", the truth will be hidden amongst so much wild speculation no one will be able to figure out what actually goes on there. It probably also serves as a nice decoy for other facilities.

      Just like what Google do!

    26. Re:A fun little theory by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they still didn't want people talking about it...

      Actually, my favorite story about Area 51 is the movie "Independence Day." From what I understand, the producers went to the military and asked for cooperation (eg, some shooting at MCAS El Toro, etc.). The military loved the script and was gung-ho to do it. They only asked one little thing...

      That all references to Area 51 be removed from the script.

      The producers decided not to change the script and forego military cooperation.

  6. Move along by AkA+lexC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing to see here

    --
    -AlexC
  7. Timely piece by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In our current environment of detainees, secret wiretaps, torture, and the like, I find this article quite timely. The closing paragraph seems rather foreboding:

    Nothing more is known of this Skylab photography incident than the fact that the photograph was not released. NASA and the State Department clearly lost the argument. But the opponents of releasing it preserved national security, as they defined it.

    It seems that similar discussions are happening around current issues, with leaks aplenty. I wonder who will win the argument now?

    1. Re:Timely piece by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Of course, this time we can see a direct link between releasing information and preserving national security. Stopping the people responsible for this mess from continuing to put us at risk by forcing them to answer for their actions.

    2. Re:Timely piece by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the argument? We're detaining people, tapping wires, and torturing people. (Of course, a Navy SEAL's definition of torture is different from Harvey Fierstein's, but there's no question we're doing more to suspected terrorists in captivity than feeding them ice cream.)

      If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me. Short of naming Kreskin to a newly-minted cabinet position of Secretery of The Psi-Corps, I'm not sure how else this would be best accomplished "in our current environment."

      Now, you can quibble that we're detaining, tapping, and beating the wrong guys, or not enough guys, and that's fine, we're an open society, get angry and discuss away, but I find it tough to argue against any of these procedures in toto.

    3. Re:Timely piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice reply :) i totally agree!

    4. Re:Timely piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who will win the argument this time? Probably the enemies of the United States if we keep tipping our hat with these damn leaks.

    5. Re:Timely piece by murderlegendre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me.

      Careful now.. if and when they come for you, there may be no one left to say anything.

      --
      There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
    6. Re:Timely piece by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative
      Now, you can quibble that we're detaining, tapping, and beating the wrong guys, or not enough guys, and that's fine, we're an open society, get angry and discuss away, but I find it tough to argue against any of these procedures in toto.

      Under due process of law of a reasonable government, detention and eavesdropping are fine. We don't have due process of law or a reasonable government at the moment, but yes, that's not an arguement against detention and spying in toto.

      Torture, on the other hand, is not only illegal, immoral, a greate recruiting tool for the enemy, and , but it doesn't work as a reliable source of information. People will say anything to make it stop, tell you what they think you want to hear.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:Timely piece by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me.

      Da, tovarisch! Only bourgeois capitalist running-dog counter-revolutionaries will be detained, phone-tapped, and beaten! We glorious workers and peasants of the new socialist brotherhood of man have nothing to fair from our wise and just leaders! FOR THE MOTHERLAND!

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Timely piece by nfgaida · · Score: 1

      If we abandon our principals when the boogyman says "boo", then we deserve the police-state we will create. (s/will/are)

      Why is it never mentioned that a better solution to the "terrorist menance" is to stop stiring the pot in the middle east and just ignore it? Stop funding them, stop pissing them off. Of course, since a large amount of our national debt is held by people/governments in the middle east, I doubt that will ever happen.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
    9. Re:Timely piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you're a little out of date on your doubletalk magicspeak. It's no longer Motherland. Dubya prefers "Homeland" now.

      Maybe when one of the twins gets elected in 20 years time they'll change the master directive to "Superland," "Opryland," or good ol' "Jesusland."

    10. Re:Timely piece by Pragmatix · · Score: 1
      I hate to play the devil's advocate on something as nasty as torture; but torture most certainly does provide reliable information in certain situations.


      If you are looking for specific verifiable information (where is the bomb planted) and the person knows, torture will get that information from them. If you are looking for someone to provide a 'confession' or other non-verifiable information, torture is indeed worthless.

      Either way, torture is too extreme to be of use and it is apt to be abused.

    11. Re:Timely piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In our current environment of detainees, secret wiretaps, torture, and the like, I find this article quite timely

      When was this comment posted? 1942? If so, I wouldn't describe it as timely exactly. Maybe timeless would be a more apt description?

    12. Re:Timely piece by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Exactly!

      See, the 'Give me liberty or give me death!' meme is a false dichotomy. People think it means you pick one, but in reality it merely means you have chosen to operate in a universe where liberty is important, and you are willing have the risk of death.

      But without liberty, you do not risk death, so you can trivially choose enslavement and not have any risk of death at all!

      And, like Bush said, they hate us for our freedoms, so if we get rid of those, we'll be fine.

      Unless, for some inexplicable reason, after we sign our freedoms back over the government, they fail to protect us. But I'm sure they're picking competent people to protect us, like Michael Brown and Julie Myers, who was just appointed to run Immigration and Customs, despite having no experience at all either in that field or managing a large organization. But, she's married to a friend of Bush's, and, seriously, how important is it to keep certain people and things out of the country?

      And I'm sure the decision not to provide protective gear to our military, or set up a government in Iraq that not only is almost certain to be opposed to our interests, like the one we got rid of, but allied with our other enemies, unlike the one we got rid of, were mistakes we've all learned from and won't happen again.

      And I'm sure when we stop putting our rights ahead of national security, the Administration will stop putting its own concerns ahead of national security, like in the past when it outed Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, one of the few people that any intelligence service had inside al-Queda, because, hey, Bush was up for re-election.

      Because, you see, giving up your rights is a legit choice. (Not taking them from people unilaterally, as this government has basically done, but having the people decide.) However, you should damn sure the people who're handing your rights over to can actually protect you, and actually have your best interests at heart.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:Timely piece by iceperson · · Score: 1

      i bet you $10,000.00 i could make you tell me your pin number for your ATM card.

    14. Re:Timely piece by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      but torture most certainly does provide reliable information in certain situations. If you are looking for specific verifiable information (where is the bomb planted) and the person knows, torture will get that information from them.

      Military interrogators say otherwise.

      If the bomb is ticking, the bomber will just give you false information. Yes, it's verifiable information, so you know he lied when it blows up across town as your bomb squad converges on the false leads he gave you, but so what?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    15. Re:Timely piece by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but torture most certainly does provide reliable information in certain situations.
      The Russians under Stalin knew it wasn't a reliable way of getting information (eg. the guy that confessed to blowing up more trains than existed in the USSR), but they knew it was a tool for terror and for getting a signature on an already prepared confession. If the experts that did a huge amount of it didn't trust it, what does it say about the practice?

      If you are looking for specific verifiable information (where is the bomb planted) and the person knows, torture will get that information from them
      This old excuse for torture again - "they know when and when the bomb is planted and we'll save lives if we torture them so it's OK" - is a nasty bit of social engineering designed to make people think it's excusable in some situations. That situation is a narrow case which has never happened, and if it does it's unlikely to be any use anyway - yet torture is still carried out for US and allied interests. The limits get pushed more and more - until you have the current reality of citizens of allied powers getting kidnapped then shipped off to Afganistan for a spot of torture (outsourcing lets people wash their hands of the issue like Pontious Pilot). I really thought the stuff that happened in Central America under Reagan was tinfoil hat claims or rogue agents, but from recent disclosures it appears that torture has been standard operating procedure by rogue intelligence agencies for some time and we just have a current administration that is completely letting them off the leash.

      Torture is about expediently forcing someone to sign a bit of paper so you can tell everyone the crime is solved, it isn't about law enforcement.

    16. Re:Timely piece by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me.

      Pussy. Look at you, running scared because the shouty guys on TV told you to. Grow a pair.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    17. Re:Timely piece by sancho7124 · · Score: 1

      At least when we torture people nobody gets their head chopped off and the video of the incident shown on MSNBC or Fox news(the American equivalent of Al Jazer).

    18. Re:Timely piece by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      So detaining and torturing "suspects" is just fine right? Nothing needs to be proven as long as the military or some vaguely "intelligence"-related agency says that somebody is a "suspect"? I'm not so craven as to claim that I'm paying my government to "protect me" by violating human rights. In fact I don't think any of it protects me at all. Even if it did it would be craven and dishonest. I can pay my government to protect me by killing every body else. That doesn't make it right. And that shouldn't make it American (tm).

      'I'm not sure how else this would be best accomplished'

      If you cannot imagine any other way of protecting the country than random indeterminate detention of unnamed number of people (possibly US citizens), secret domestic wiretaps, and torture, than I posit you have a very limited imagination. It seems for the majority of our history we've been able to avoid at least 2 of those on a consistent basis (although I suppose we don't really know for sure).

      Yes you can argue technicalities over whether foreign persons detained by the military fall under US due process. You can quibble over the continuum of torture. I suppose you could /attempt/ to justify secret wiretapping ordered by the executive branch against the fourth amendment. But that would be a sad day for this country, and if he haven't already lost it, we would certainly lose the moral highground on which we consistently base our foreign policy.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    19. Re:Timely piece by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, torture properly applied does work. One very publicly known scenario in which torture worked involved an Army Major, a captured terrorist, and an impending ambush.

      The Major fired his service sidearm next to the terrorist's head... thus inducing him to elucidate the location and the means of the impending ambush, saving the lives of his men, who would have fallen victim to this ambush.

      The job of a professional interrogator is to determine _how_ to get information from an individual. Some people are very easy. Another anecdote, although unpublished, involves trainees at national level Anti-Terrorist SWAT training program. The men that qualify for this program are subject to low-level torture: Sleep dep, starvation, dehydration, "stress positions", and light violent contact. They know that if they offer "restricted" info they wash out of the program and are unceremoniously dropped from the class and sent home. Some still offer that info.

      The above exercise is composed by the FBI, CIA, Nat'l Park Service, ICE, and Secret Service.

      So, politicians, public mouthpieces, and ignoramuses claim that torture doesn't work. The ground-pounders and hard-chargers know otherwise. This allows for the appearance of civility.

      Sort of like not allowing .50 cal machine guns for anti-personnel use, it makes the politicos feel better, but you bet your ass that my Ma-Deuce will pulverize any unlucky soul who approaches my firing zone.

    20. Re:Timely piece by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The men that qualify for this program are subject to low-level torture: Sleep dep, starvation, dehydration, "stress positions", and light violent contact.
      No wonder the former prisoners of war held by the Japanese and Vietcong are so pissed off by the way the world is going.
      claim that torture doesn't work
      Torture does work if you want a signature on a piece of paper you've drafted yourself or a tool of terror. It isn't inadmissable in court because a system that put people to death in painful ways decided a long time back they were too squeamish - it's because it was found a long time ago to be unreliable. Consider witchcraft trials and all the weird stuff that came up in those as evidence gained under torture.

      I find it very strange that a Republic with democratic elections advocates such a practice right up to it's highest levels.

    21. Re:Timely piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, politicians, public mouthpieces, and ignoramuses claim that torture doesn't work. The ass-pounders and redneck-pillow-munchers know otherwise.
      well, we all know which category you fit into

    22. Re:Timely piece by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      well i bet you $10,000 you could make person X tell you the pin number for person Y's ATM card. heck, i bet that after you tried it and it didn't work you could make person X tell you another pin for person Y's ATM card. doesnt mean its any fucking use or even halfway true. people will tell you anything if you torture them, anything they think might make you stop.

      so in closing, for torture to even possibly (still not definitely, extremists willing to die for their cause aren't going to crack as easily as a normal soldier with a wife and kids who'd actually like to return home alive) work the victim must actually know what you're trying to get out of them, and if you know that they know, they why dont you already know whatever you're trying to get out of them?

      --
      TIAEAE!
  8. Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.

    There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder. It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation. It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

    While any powerful organization has the ability to abuse power, people have to understand that they cannot know everything. There is a reason why information about Area 51 has been kept secretive. It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that. I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too. If I wanted to know more I would join the Air Force and try to get into intelligence, and maybe excel enough to get clearance to these secret government projects.

    --

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Government Secrecy by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that.

      There is also no proof that they have a good reason. Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time.

    2. Re:Government Secrecy by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder."

      Civil order is not a valid excuse for government secrecy. If the government took proper action in re: whatever it is they are hiding, civil disorder would not be a risk.

      Treat the people like morons, and they'll become morons.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Government Secrecy by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I have been studying the issue on an ongoing basis and have reached the conclusion that in order to be able to wield information effectively, you must be able to control it. And controling it includes keeping it from people and making sure it only flows through controlled channels.

    4. Re:Government Secrecy by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time."

      Was it Jefferson who said a healthy distrust of government is a fundamental aspect of democracy?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.

      Dude, the groupthink is going to add an entire power of ten to your slashdot account number for uttering such heresy. You must add water to some of that rationality - you can't be serving it straight up like that. Some local readers may blow a gasket looking for negative mod points to use. Honestly, man. Think of the media-educated children who might be reading this! Next thing you'll be saying is that not everyone who does have a clearance is evil. You're taking all of the fun out of half the shows on TV.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Government Secrecy by timeOday · · Score: 1
      At the very least we should still have oversight, such as an independent secret court to monitor the secret police.

      I can't believe how undemocratic what I just wrote sounds. Yet even still, it's too much for some.

    7. Re:Government Secrecy by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.

      That's not a valid reason. Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.

      It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation.

      That's semi-valid, though in most cases it would be preferable for the government to release any information that only fell into this category couched in phrasing that makes it clear that the information is not reliable or incomplete.

      It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

      That's valid, though a well designed government should require that such information be reviewed regularly, so that it can be released as soon as it is stale.

      In general, the government should keep as few secrets from its people as possible, otherwise you're on your way to fascism.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:Government Secrecy by bear_phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not in keeping secrets from the general public. The problem is certain parts of the government keeping secrets from ELECTED officials. With the current administration a large number examples have popped up where elected officials where kept in the dark. When certain parts of the government hide information from elected officials, then the government looses any accountabilty. Without accountability then we don't have a democracy. The current administrations secret wiretaps, prisons etc.. is a huge example. I am not so much upset that the general public didn't know, but my elected official sure as hell should have known about it.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    9. Re:Government Secrecy by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

      Probably it's the most common reason. For the same reason private companies protect their secrecy. If you are developing some new digital gizmo, you don't want your competitors to know too much as it would allow them to develop their own counter-gizmos. The same goes for new design of fighter planes. I think it's as simple as that with Area 51 - it's just a government-level equivalent of automobile industry reluctancy to reveal too soon the look and features of their new models.

    10. Re:Government Secrecy by jimbolauski · · Score: 0

      "Treat the people like morons, and they'll become morons."

      There were many morons in this world before far before they were treated like one.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    11. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time.

      So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere? The whole point of intelligence committees made up of your elected representatives is to regularly rotate in some people that can do a sanity check on the policies that are at work, here. Likewise, you can't operate a place like Area 51 without the bugetary approval of a lot of people. And it's not like they get one big bank transfer every year... their funds are approved/disapproved on a project-by-project basis.

      The whole point of being able to quietly work on things like the SR-71 (and its more recent offspring) is to have the ability to actually use it for a while before the people it's intended to help watch fully understand the capability. Don't you think it's helpful to know as much as possible about where North Korea and Iran are parking specific pieces of their nuke infrastructures? Sure, we're getting more of that from orbit than from things being flown out of the Nevada desert, but the principle is the same: operational details made public to every citizen are thus made public to every person in the world.

      I'm intensely curious about this sort of stuff, and know people in the intel line of work, but I'm very glad that I can't personally get all the details... because I don't want the guys running Taiwan-aimed Chinese missile batteries knowing them, either.

      That being said, I vote every chance I get, and think long and hard about each candidate's posture on intel, degrees of budget transparency, etc. It's a fine line to walk. I don't like wasting money, I don't like pointless power grabs... but I also like knowing that, when guys on the ground in northern Pakistan sieze a laptop from a local Al Queda franchise office, that we can be - in very short order - listening in on the calls to/from the phone numbers that were stored that same day in someone's cheesily encrypted ZIPped jihaddi speed-dial spreadsheet that includes Long Island zip codes. And park a drone over the little hut in the Afghani countryside (or Syrian suburb) that's handling the calls.

      Or, if you're not into that sort of thing, how about knowing that there are undercover cops infiltrating urban gangs? My city has a huge problem with central American gangs. Rapes, murder, robbery - the whole gambit. I do not want the general public knowing the names, faces, and addresses of the men and women who are tasked with breaking up those little fiefdoms. So, I trust my city and county governments with some somewhat more localized secret stuff. I have to. So, I vote for decent people to run the show. And I vote for decent people to have a hand in the legislative process that funds the executive people. It's not perfect, but it's necessary.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Government Secrecy by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Troll
      It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.
      You mean like religious beliefs that make people violently protest, say, against abortion clinics???
    13. Re:Government Secrecy by Scroatzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool.

      Please give me 33% of your income.

      I can't tell you why.

    14. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then a disclosure of the following would silence the alien hunters: "Area 51 is a government facility for research, design and testing of military technology. While we confirm the existence of Area 51, for reasons of National Security, we cannot go into the details of what new things we're researching there. Because of the technology used in these project, many thing will appear "alien" to you."

      instead of "There is no Area 51. That map you're showing me of Area 51 doesn't change my mind. I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of Area 51. All those 'we will shoot you if you enter this area' signs are for nothing. Close your eyes. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

    15. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm many did know of the taps. It is true that everyone did not but surely you are not going to inform every single member of the house are you? That's what special committees are for.

    16. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.

      Just because it's something someone or a group does or says 'they need to do', doesn't mean it's intrinsically part of their role. What constitutes their role is up to the electorate to decide.

      There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.

      God forbid the oiks should find out, eh? Wot with no proper schoolin' they'd never understand our clever and infallible plans!

      [ This post sponsored by the government that thought Saddam Hussein had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that could 'attack Europe in 45 minutes!' and one that thought he was in league with Al Qaeda, until they didn't. Oops, to late, we invaded, doh! "Hey yeah we lied, but your too stupid to possibly comprehend the significance of our middle east strategy, so it doesn't matter!" ]

      Hell, the US government won't even admit that GWB got drunk and in a fight and instead claimed "he slipped after choking on a pretzel" and the previous commander in chief equally farcically wouldn't admit he had a sexual relationship with an intern in the face of irrefutable evidence, and lets not get started on the exploits of Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi (and that's just the Western governments with at least some degree of accountability).

      Yes, let's trust these guys!

      While any powerful organization has the ability to abuse power, people have to understand that they cannot know everything.

      No, they don't. Governments have to understand they are under increasing pressure to be transparent and fully accountable.

      I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too.

      The citizens are invariably don't find out until many years after it's already well known by other governments exactly what a facility like this is for (and people usually work out what it's for long in advance). "Pretending it doesn't exist" avoids public accountability for the expenditure at a place like Area-51, but yields no strategic benefit.

      If I wanted to know more I would join the Air Force and try to get into intelligence, and maybe excel enough to get clearance to these secret government projects.

      Or, to put it another way, if they want to spend millions, let alone billions, of tax payers money they'd better have convincing justification as to why or they should get bupkis.

    17. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      Not every elected official needs to know everything. Loose lips sink ships. When something is deemed to be classified, then even within the government it should be kept as secretive as possible. Anyone without a need to know does not need to know.

      You have committees and such to deal with these matters, it is infeasible for every member of the Congress to sign off on every classified matter.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    18. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      As far as the government is concerned now, the more attention that Area 51 gets the better. Just like a magician they are going to keep people and governments looking there instead of where most of the real research is being done. With all of the billions of dollars our government has at their disposal I would hope they are better at hiding information from me (and people like me) than they are doing with Area 51.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Government Secrecy by tehlinux · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Some good advice.
      "Loyalty is good, but trust is overrated. Be a little bit paranoid."
      -Donald Trump
      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    20. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hope no one will figure out that I am a government secret agent trying to spread disinformation.

      Oh wait, I cant type this here, it will blow my cover. I have to make sure to close this before I accidentally hit submit.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    21. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      Well, since only the top tax bracket pays even 35% taxes, I wouldnt have to give you that much because I am not rich.

      And it is okay if you dont tell me where you spend every penny, but I better be able to see something for my money; such as:

      Having roads
      Having police
      Having the ability to go to work without worrying about being blown up by a land mine.
      Having an economy good enough so I dont have to be a farmer.
      Having a job market good enough that virtually any competent worker can easily find a job.
      etc.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    22. Re:Government Secrecy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure> it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere?

      Two years no, but ten years sounds about right.

      And it's not like they get one big bank transfer every year... their funds are approved/disapproved on a project-by-project basis.

      The "black budget" gets very little oversight.

      So, I trust my city and county governments with some somewhat more localized secret stuff. I have to.

      You don't "have" to trust them, and you shouldn't. Read up on the Rampart scandal, or the current epidemic of false arrests in Baltimore, or just skim Google for police scandals.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    23. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.

      That's not a valid reason. Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.


      Of course if you follow any path far enough it can be taken advantage of. Any time you give any power to anyone they have the ability to abuse it. Instead of refusing to give power to those who need it, it is better to find the best checks and balances possible to that power. Such as constantly fighting political parties, three branches of government, bipartisan select committees, etc.

      It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation.

      That's semi-valid, though in most cases it would be preferable for the government to release any information that only fell into this category couched in phrasing that makes it clear that the information is not reliable or incomplete.


      Even though I am a programmer by profession, I have had to do sales and marketing through my various jobs (expecially when in a small company). I dont care how you tell people something, they will misconstrue it to some extent. You can tell someone that your information is not reliable, but most people will not comprehend that.

      I sent out a mass email to 5000 customers once to sell pre-orders to a software upgrade, and made sure to make it as clear as possible that it was a preorder. Sure enough we got dozens of calls within days from people wondering why they couldnt download it after they just bought it online.

      It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

      That's valid, though a well designed government should require that such information be reviewed regularly, so that it can be released as soon as it is stale.


      If the information is "stale", then there is no reason to disclose any information because it is already readably available. If there are still any questions that would have to be made clear to the public, then there must still be some secrets that have not fully leaked. I agree that such information must be reviewed regularly, but I doubt that the general public is good at determining when that info has become "stale". How about we leave that up to our elected officials.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    24. Re:Government Secrecy by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Keeping a secret military installment from the general public should fall under the scope of a necessary secret. It's hard to stay ahead of other nations militarily if we have specials on the History channel about all our newest and greatest.

      The balancing act here is to be careful not to blindly trust the government (That's why we have oversight committees in Congress.)while not allowing paranoia to take over.

      The only two valid answers to the question, "Is there a conspiracy?" are "I don't know" and "Yes"

    25. Re:Government Secrecy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.

      Nonsense. This is a democratic republic - in a fundamental sense the general public is the government.

      Current military deployments and capabilities should be able to be classified for a limited time, say ten years, but that's it.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    26. Re:Government Secrecy by stinerman · · Score: 1

      So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere?

      I used the number '2' because US Congressional elections are every 2 years. When new people are in the mix, the trust resets and the government has to earn it all over again.

      As for the rest of your response, I don't know what it is in respsonse to, because all I said was trusting your government isn't a good idea. Secrecy in some things is, of course, necessary.

    27. Re:Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 1

      The "black budget" gets very little oversight.

      Are you basing this on actual information, or are you making this up like every other conspiracy nut? For all you and I know the "black budget" could have more oversight than your average military budget.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    28. Re:Government Secrecy by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1
      The current administrations secret wiretaps, prisons etc.. is a huge example. I am not so much upset that the general public didn't know, but my elected official sure as hell should have known about it.

      As for your examples, your elected officials did know. Does it surprise you that they are not being completely honest about it? Don't buy into the politicaly motivated lies and contortions. They are at least as bad for freedom as any government secrets.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    29. Re:Government Secrecy by MegaThawt · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to reconcile the posting:
      I for one will just sit back and be comforted
      with the sig:
      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

      cheers!

      --
      All sigs should be as funny as possible, but no funnier.
    30. Re:Government Secrecy by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Then a disclosure of the following would silence the alien hunters:

      No, nothing will silence the alien hunters. Conspiracy theorists believe what they believe on faith, not on fact. If the government issued the statement you suggested, the alien hunters/conspiracy theorists would certainly reply, "They're just saying that because that's what they want you to believe."

    31. Re:Government Secrecy by Surt · · Score: 1

      Of course if you follow any path far enough it can be taken advantage of. Any time you give any power to anyone they have the ability to abuse it. Instead of refusing to give power to those who need it, it is better to find the best checks and balances possible to that power. Such as constantly fighting political parties, three branches of government, bipartisan select committees, etc.

      In this case I was referring to a specific, unneeded power. Why grant a power to those who don't need it?

      I sent out a mass email to 5000 customers once to sell pre-orders to a software upgrade, and made sure to make it as clear as possible that it was a preorder. Sure enough we got dozens of calls within days from people wondering why they couldnt download it after they just bought it online.

      That's a problem for the customer to live with. As long as your documentation is clear, you can refer them back to it by way of explanation when they are confused. That's not an excuse for the government to withhold information.

      If the information is "stale", then there is no reason to disclose any information because it is already readably available. If there are still any questions that would have to be made clear to the public, then there must still be some secrets that have not fully leaked. I agree that such information must be reviewed regularly, but I doubt that the general public is good at determining when that info has become "stale". How about we leave that up to our elected officials.

      You've misunderstood my usage of stale. I was referring to information which is still secret, but no longer a security risk. Security risks have valid reasons to be withheld from the public. Ex-Security risks do not.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    32. Re:Government Secrecy by Surt · · Score: 1

      Keeping a secret military installment from the general public should fall under the scope of a necessary secret. It's hard to stay ahead of other nations militarily if we have specials on the History channel about all our newest and greatest.

      Absolutely. I was only responding to the parent poster, who seemed (to me fairly clearly) to be talking about the principle of government secrecy generally, and in fact I discussed the need for secrecy to maintain security specifically as did the OP.

      The only two valid answers to the question, "Is there a conspiracy?" are "I don't know" and "Yes"

      That i'd have to disagree with in principle, though in our current government that is certainly true. It is possible to design a government / society where 'no' would be a valid and correct answer.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    33. Re:Government Secrecy by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      In short, you're advocating controlling people. Nice. Remind me not to vote for you if you ever decide to run for president.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    34. Re:Government Secrecy by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, specifically with some of the details coming out about wire taps. What's difficult though, is the politics being played along with some of these sensitive issues. Too many people are jumping on the "Nobody Knew" bandwagon, because they didn't know. In most cases, there are oversight committees that do know about them. If you are worried about those issues, email your representatives and ask them for more information. http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind/

    35. Re:Government Secrecy by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not unpatriotic, it's realistic.

      Where there's power, humans will abuse it, plain and simple. It's human nature.

      Pardon the cliché, but someone needs to be watching the watchers.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    36. Re:Government Secrecy by kabocox · · Score: 1

      There is a reason why information about Area 51 has been kept secretive. It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that. I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too.

      I like the theory that Area51 is just a decoy. I think that Area 51 needs to offically exist and all the proper paper work for the employees needs to be done. Part of me has a sweet spot for ultra high tech government toys, but I'd rathter the workers at the facility have an expection of decent health after working there rather than all dieing form long lingering diseases and the entire place is classified as not existant. If the "government" needs "black" offices and employess then it should have an entire accounting/health care structure to make sure those employees/citizens are very well looked after. I'm thinking of it from just the labor/health issues. If we were fighting a war with evil Nazis or communists then I could see working in a plant that could have long term health effects if it helped the US win the war. In a time of peace with no danger of being taken over, there is no reason for those classified workers to have to work in a facility that endangers their long term health.

      There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.

      I've got one word for you. Nuclear. I have nothing against nuclear devices either bombs, power planets, or medical equipment. I do have issues with improper storage of nuclear wastes and byproducts, but that's something else. I can envision things much, much worse than nuclear war. I'd fear a biological or nanotech war research plant far more than a mere aircraft testing field. We have thousandds of airfields that could do those same tests. Or maybe they'd just experiment on aircraft carriers in the future.

    37. Re:Government Secrecy by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      Would you please point me to the article of the Constitution that says that it is the goverments job to handle things the general public should not know about? I seem to have missed this one in class. I will give you, that foreign countries should not know about, but lets educate the irrational uneducated person instead of keeping them in the dark and uneducated.

    38. Re:Government Secrecy by kylerimkus · · Score: 1

      How do you "inadvertently photograph" something from space with a handheld camera? Were they just snapping away pictures of the desert and happened to focus on a landing strip? I think not. You need one helluva zoom on a handheld camera to be able to see Area 51.

      I think this whole story is bogus. I personally know both Pogue and Carr. They have never mentioned this incident. The most interesting part of their Skylab mission was when a piece of tinfoil space debris was mistaken for a flashing alien spacecraft.

      I call shenanigans.

    39. Re:Government Secrecy by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      First of all, I don't think that "silencing the alien hunters" is really high on the government's list of priorities. Alien hunters are harmless or even beneficial - they provide fodder for popular culture, from "Men In Black" to the "X-Files" and support tourist infrastructure in Nevada. Just look at the whole touristic phenomenon on this website. They even named Route 375 "Extraterrestrial Higway", deliberately ATTRACTING alien hunters - who will spend their hard earned bucks in local diners, parking lots, motels, tour guide operators etc.

      All that the general public needs to know about it is that this is restricted area, period. I don't think government should go into details like "oh yeah, here we test new fighters and there we develop new tanks and that area is just reserved for future use", making foreign spies job easier. Especially I don't think they should do it to combat essentially harmless folklore!

    40. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      As for the rest of your response, I don't know what it is in respsonse to, because all I said was trusting your government isn't a good idea. Secrecy in some things is, of course, necessary.

      My point (in mentioning some of the bigger-budget, "blacker" stuff that government does) is that complex, sustained security activities require sustained trust in the institutions that perform those jobs. I have to trust "the government" because that's who we have in place to perform those jobs. Politicians come and go, and budgets/missions shift with time, but most of the spooky stuff that's done is done by career professionals that are on the job througout multiple administrations and legislative vintages. If you don't trust the institution, and the people who commit their lives to that work know it, they leave. And you get the revolving door of mediocrity that led up to 9/11. Years of budgetary neglect and muddled missions/objectives left the post-Cold-War intel community in a position not to be trusted... but not for the usual (sinister-ish sounding) reasons.

      When we make a concerted effort to make intel work as attractive (and sane) a career as, say, working for a big-ticket private employer - that's when we'll get an even more trustworthy, professional crowd working in those circles. The CIA is busy, right now, trying to figure out how to make a long-term career there (as an analyst, for example) compelling enough to keep seriously dedicated, capable people in those roles. It's hard, on government pay.

      I do agree with you, though, that a continual stream of fresh (cleared, trustworthy themselves) faces looking in on what every spooky agency is doing is appropriate and necessary. But when they blab about operational details to the NY Times (especially just to score cheap political points), that's really, really bad news.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    41. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Two years no, but ten years sounds about right

      That's crazy. There are field operatives and missions/tasks that are only just starting to settle into being useful over a period of 10 years. Making that sort of information public would cost the covers, "legacies," and even lives of those people doing that very difficult work. When people like Aldrich Aimes let slip material twice that old, it cost lives.

      The "black budget" gets very little oversight

      Each agency/department has its own version of a "black" budget. The CIA's is probably the hardest to pin down because the trails left by financial transactions are exactly the sort of thing that foreign intelligence agencies use to get a picture of our operations overseas. Entities like the NSA, on the other hand, have a much more transparent budget... but it's only transparent to those reps cleared to see it. The risks of exposure are huge (see the travesty with the NY Times a few weeks ago).

      You don't "have" to trust them, and you shouldn't.

      Your references to local Police Departments being stupid don't change my point. You have to trust in the institution, and fix the broken individual people that pollute it. That takes politicians that are relatively brave and persuasive, and those are indeed relatively rare. It's one of the more interesting arguments for term limits.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re:Government Secrecy by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm reminded of when FBI agents knocked on my door and asked questions about my neighbor who had applied to work at WPAFB. My girlfriend let them know she didn't know much about him (we lived in an apartment and we were new) but never had any problems with his conduct, so she wouldn't have any problem reccomending that he be granted his position. At that point one of the agents said:

      "You say you don't know him, but you trust him to national security matters?"

      She replied:

      "I don't know you, but I kinda have to trust you, now don't I?"

    43. Re:Government Secrecy by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      All excellent government-provided things.

      Sorry, though, I can't buy into the "tyranny of the masses" theory of why self-important power mongerers secretly do things that can destroy our civilization. The only reason to keep anything secret from the masses is because you know it's wrong and will get you into a situation where you will have to give up your power.

    44. Re:Government Secrecy by barutanseijin · · Score: 1

      Secrecy is the problem. The US is ostensibly a democracy[1], but how can the people rule on a matter if they don't know anything about it? Government secrecy is a bureaucratic power grab. [1] And don't give me the "it's a republic, not a democracy" business, either. I suppose you'd have us forget the Gettysburg address because Lincoln was all wrong about the nature of his country. If you want to talk about the here and now, the right has tried to sell the war in Iraq as a struggle to install a democracy, not a republic.

    45. Re:Government Secrecy by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs

      True. Getting average uneducated people to form irrational beliefs is called religion, and the government isn't supposed to promote it.

    46. Re:Government Secrecy by ghost_world · · Score: 1

      The "if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them" argument is flawed - as is discussed in TFA. In this case, the main other government that we were concerned with was the USSR, and they had better pictures of every square meter of our soil than a handheld camera pointed out of SkyLab's window could possibly produce.

      The problem is not that some pieces of information should really be classified, it's that the documents sit and rot in "classified" files forever. And indeed the rules about what to classify rarely ever change. There probably was a time that the Soviets didn't know what went on at "Area 51", but that was a long, long time ago, and now the Russian intelligence services have a much better idea of what went on there than you or I do.

      Think about it this way: if you were an analyst at some alphabet soup agency and you set a document as classified... do you think you might get in trouble for that? What about UN-classifying one?

      There should be strict time-limits on classified files, and the longer the time limit, the more high-level signatures should be required. This would serve to counter-balance the natural tendency of intelligence services to just classify everything as "top-secret" and bury it.

    47. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Even without secret that doesn't make the foreign country able to build the same military technologies.
      No country in the world can be as powerfull as the US Army, and that's just a matter of $$$$. It's just $$ that makes space research in foreign country like France useless and crappy. Nasa > World.

      Secret is valid if your ennemies got the resource to build the same things. That's not going to happen. See how crappy the best french military planes are.
      The airbus are as good as Boeing because they got the budget. The french military can't get the same budget as the USA.

    48. Re:Government Secrecy by Arandir · · Score: 1

      My elected official is Nancy Pelosi. She was INFORMED about the wiretaps, and has admitted she was INFORMED about the wiretaps. Her gripe isn't that congress wasn't informed, her gripe is that congress wasn't asked for permission.

      She and many of her colleagues don't want checks and balances on other branches of government, they want control over other branches of government.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    49. Re:Government Secrecy by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I don't like wasting money, I don't like pointless power grabs... but I also like knowing that, when guys on the ground in northern Pakistan sieze a laptop from a local Al Queda franchise office, that we can be - in very short order - listening in on the calls to/from the phone numbers that were stored that same day in someone's cheesily encrypted ZIPped jihaddi speed-dial spreadsheet that includes Long Island zip codes.

      Just FYI, you appear to have fallen for the FISA-doesn't-allow-that lie.

      FISA allows 72 hours worth of wiretaps for no reason at all. You then, at that point, have to make a request to the FISA court, which is designed for speed.

      All complaints about how 'the process' is slow have actually been talking about filling out the paper. The court is wicked fast, and you can, in fact, keep tapping until they get around to your case anyway. A slow FISA court would mean more wiretapping allowed.(1)

      Some blogs have been completely ignoring this ability under FISA for the last two weeks, claiming Bush needs to break FISA to do exactly what he can do under FISA.

      To set the record straight: If the government finds phone numbers in a laptop of an apparent agent, it can just go ahead and listen...it just, also, has to file the paper work with the FISA court. Unless and until they are told to stop by the court because there is clearly no reason they should be listening to these people, or unless the 72 hour deadline passes without them bothering to hand in paperwork, they can keep doing it.

      Bush claims he does not need to do this, either because of the authorization of the war in Afganistan, or because in the time of war the president has whatever powers he needs to execute said war.

      And before someone mods me down, please try to figure out exactly where I stated an opinion in there. Those are the facts of the FISA law, and what Bush says about his admitted failure to follow it.

      1) And I will state an opinion here, because complaining that paperwork the executive branch does for the judical branch is 'a lot' is fucking absurd. The interaction between the judical and executive branch is almost entirely realms and realms of pointless paperwork where the executive branch wants something, and the judical branch has to okay it. That's why we hire clerks to fill out paperwork! Whinging about about a dozen wiretap forms for the entire government every day is absurd, especially when you presumably are having to pay people listen to the wiretaps and transcribe them, others to translate, others deciding who to tap, and others to check for coded message, etc. Each wrong wiretap probably sucks at least a man-week of skilled work at 50 dollars an hour minimum just to determine it's pointless, and complaining about an hour it takes an unskilled worker to fill out a form at 15 dollars an hour is craziness indeed.

      Yes yes, in this case, they need classified clearances. So? The intelligence community is full of clerks with classified clearances.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    50. Re:Government Secrecy by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yes, and yet they weren't presented to a special committee.

      They, in fact, were presented to only certain members of that special committee under such classification that said members could not actually bring up the fact in the special committee

      Anyone who thinks that's normal behavior for intelligence handling is sadly confused.

      Frankly, I think it's fucking absurd that there even is a way for the administration to gag Congressentities. Everything the executive branch does should be open to at least one special committee to just waltz in and find out, and they should have the right to vote to call a closed session of their chamber and tell everyone.

      Before anyone talks about 'seperation of powers', I have to point out the executive branch is supposed to executing the laws created by the executive branch, and only those laws. The executive branch shouldn't be doing anything not authorized by Congress.

      (Of course, there is a balance of power fact where the executive branch can basically decided to ignore people breaking certain laws, which along with the veto power gives us the idea that the executive branch doesn't have to enforce the law, but there is a difference between saying 'We will not enforce that law.' and 'We will enforce this new thing we made up that we have decided to call a law'. And if the executive branch itself breaks the law, the legislative can step in.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    51. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every penny should be fully accounted for; who got paid what when for what reason. Anything paid to informants is labelled "secret informants." This accounting information is released at the end of 10 years. There should be full disclosure of all government operations after 50 years.

      If these disclosures show there was fraud or abuse and we can go after the money or the people, then we should do so. Including money that is passed down one or two generations, with interest.

    52. Re:Government Secrecy by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      But who watches the watchers of the watchers?

      My mod privs dissappeared a long time ago, but no matter how arbitrarily I meta-mod, I doubt those privs will ever dissappear.

      Why?

      Because nobody checks the meta-mods for either consistency or accuracy,

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    53. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I think you may be misreading my comment. I don't like waste, or the pointless application of government resources to any misguided project or task... but I do like that we have the infrastructure, people, practices, and willingness to gather and act on the intel that turns up (for example, on a laptop in Pakistan, followed by listening to cell phone calls from New York to Karachi an hour later). FISA allows for this because it was obviously going to be important to be able to immediately act in light of new leads. Ongoing defensive actions/intel against bad guys make the need for ad hoc actions of the same sort obviously important... life saving, even.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    54. Re:Government Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume way too much. I, and others, are not assuming anything.

      We simply question whether or not the cost of secrecy outweighs its benefits. Which needs be done on a case by case basis and in an accountable fashion.

      IMHO, all you are doing is justifying bureaucracy and tyranny.

    55. Re:Government Secrecy by mentaldrano · · Score: 1

      While you do have a point about some secrets being necessary, the question becomes "who determines what is necessary?" Nearly always, government officials are overly restrictive of what gets released, even to other government agencies. How can the government make good decisions without full knowledge of the situation?

      What we need is dynamic equilibrium: the overly-secretive types should be constantly fighting the tell-the-world types, with neither side getting too strong. Not the most efficient system, but at least it removes the need for a central arbiter. One could argue that this is the case in the US right now: the current administration vs. the NY Times about the NSA secret wiretaps is a good example.

      Of course, once the opposing parties get in bed with each other, your equilibrium goes out the window...

    56. Re:Government Secrecy by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Isn't another thing she is upset about is that it was illegal for her to discuss it with anyone? Even to talk to staff attorneys to see ask their opinion of the legality. Informing a congressman then saying, if you use this information we will put you in jail is almost as bad as not telling them in the first place.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    57. Re:Government Secrecy by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, what's funny about this is not the comment, but the moderation.

      "Insightful"? Not only is this not insightful, but it makes absolutely no sense when you think about it. Seriously -- I'm an editor, and it's my job to understand the meaning of words. I've read this several times and I still don't understand it.

      What the comment seems to be suggestiong is that, by keeping some information secret, the government is causing "average uneducated person[s] [to] form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder ... [for example], religious beliefs that make people violently protest, say, against abortion clinics.

      Huh? What secret is the government keeping that would cause this -- that Jesus has appeared to them, and told them he approves of abortion? And even then, you would have to postulate that the government simply *withholding* this information is somehow enough to lead people to "form beliefs that make [them] violently protest, say, against abortion clinics"

      "Insightful," indeed.

            - AJ

    58. Re:Government Secrecy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You have to trust in the institution, and fix the broken individual people that pollute it.

      The institution by its nature is broken. The very nature of a full-time professional police force with special authority is problematic enough, especially with increasing militarization of policing in the past few decades; so long as on top of that they're tasked with enforcing unethical drug, vice, and other "consensual crimes" laws, police forces are broken by design.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    59. Re:Government Secrecy by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.

      Brazil, in fact, does exactly this. A friend is from a small town in the mountains outside Rio, and the mayor makes twice as much as President Clinton did (I don't know if Bush's salary was raised or not; this was during Clinton's era).

      She said it wouldn't be so bad, except that there are children starving in the streets. And the police would rather kill the orphans than fill out the paperwork.

      Here in the US, government jobs are somewhat looked down upon; pay is less than private-sector jobs, productivity is terrible, there's something of a stigma to it. Whereas down there, everyone wants a government job -- so they can get their hands into the till.

      The mayor had someone killed, in his house, and nothing happened.

      Her cousin was camping with some friends, and police encountered them, killed them, and there was nothing the family could do about it.

      Politicians, when running for office, are regularly killed by the incumbents. Also, they regularly lie to the people: "vote for me and every house will have a new fridge!" After the election, however, the only new fridges that appear are in the mayor's house (and family and friends).

      Bribery is the way to get things done down there. The cops will stop people who look like they have money (I looked American, and was reading a book which means of course I'm educated and therefore rich) so they pulled us over and hassled us until my friend mentioned that her cousin is the chief of police; then we got an apology and were sent on our way.

      I realize that the above is completely anecdotal and I do not have the means to back it up, so take it at that level. I don't believe she has any reason to lie to me, though (and it made me really nervous to be pulled over and not speak the language).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    60. Re:Government Secrecy by Arandir · · Score: 1

      But yet she is discussing it...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    61. Re:Government Secrecy by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Bush claims he does not need to do this, either because of the authorization of the war in Afganistan, or because in the time of war the president has whatever powers he needs to execute said war.
      While he may want to be a heriditary monarch with more power than the English King John the entire world would be fools to let it be so - for the future and not just the current administration.
    62. Re:Government Secrecy by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      If they're asking that question, it's reasonable to assume the same question was asked about them during their own background checks, back when they first applied for the job.

      Hopefully, since they got hired, their background check interviewees thought the question through carefully and answered honestly "yes", rather than being flippant smartasses.

      On the other hand, this story is proof that America really is a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people: A flippant, smartass citizenry produces flippant smartass FBI agents, while a thoughtful, sincere citizenry would produce thoughtful, sincere FBI agents.

      I mean, sure, your girlfriend doesn't get to personally approve of every FBI agent out there, but every FBI agent on the force had to be approved by some citizens, somewhere.

      Thus, the quality of our FBI agents reflects the values and concerns of our citizenry as a whole. How cool is that?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    63. Re:Government Secrecy by Surt · · Score: 1

      Metamod: note the redundant mod was wrong since this was the first reply.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  9. Oldest trick in the book by Billosaur · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Magicians call it "misdirection"; they get you looking in one direction so you don't see what's happening elsewhere. All the conspiracy nuts spend so much time obsessing about "Area 51" that they fail to see the government's real conspiracies (war in Iraq, etc.).

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Deagol · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget the "chemtrails" The Man is using to poison the population.

    2. Re:Oldest trick in the book by CFTM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure someone said it before Kiser Soze but "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convicing the world he didn't exist".

    3. Re:Oldest trick in the book by gmikej · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wish I had modding power so I could give you a -5 troll. WHY is everything about Iraq? And what is the conspiracy there? Oh I know what you'll say... "O!L!!!! Bu$h is getting rich off oil!!! That's why he has become the most hated person in the world so he can have money and power!!!"
      Too bad most people that hate the current person in office don't think of a few simple facts:
      (1) He was already rich.
      (2) If he really wanted power he would be doing things EVERYONE liked... or at least not pissing off the world (i.e. any past liberal president).

      Maybe, just maybe, the actual conspiracy is that, although unpopular, we are in Iraq to help the Iraq people. That may not be why we went there in the first place, but that is why we are there now. No conspiracy... move along.

      *sigh*

      Wow that was offtopic...

    4. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Gah! Bloody chemtrails! While I generally get a good chuckle at most conspiracy theories, this one is so stupid that it actively offends me. Seriously, you'd have to be retarded to believe that the government/aliens/major league baseball wwere trying to poison/drug us by spraying poison/drugs out of high-altitude aircraft. 1) the number of officials/airline employees involved in such a program would inevitably lead to the program being revealed and 2) there are a number of less expensive and more effective ways to poison or drug a population (think water supplies). If people can't wrap their pitiful brains around the basic concept of condensation and immediately jump to the conclusion that "them airplanes is sprayin' posion on us," then our nation's educational system has failed us.

      Or maybe they've already gotten control of my mind...

    5. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Q. WHY is everything about Iraq?
      A. Not everything is about Iraq.

      Q. And what is the conspiracy there?
      A. To divert U.S. taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex, and secure oil supplies and contracts for the likes of Haliburton.

      Q.Oh I know what you'll say... "O!L!!!! Bu$h is getting rich off oil!!! That's why he has become the most hated person in the world so he can have money and power!!!"
      A. Not really. It's the puppeteers that gain.

      Q. Too bad most people that hate the current person in office don't think of a few simple facts:
      (1) He was already rich.
      (2) If he really wanted power he would be doing things EVERYONE liked... or at least not pissing off the world (i.e. any past liberal president).
      A. We don't hate him, just think he's a gimp.

      Q. Maybe, just maybe, the actual conspiracy is that, although unpopular, we are in Iraq to help the Iraq people. That may not be why we went there in the first place, but that is why we are there now. No conspiracy... move along.
      A. Unlikely. If we were there to help, we wouldn't have massacred 100,000 civilians and built up resentment for the future.

      Q. *sigh*
      A. *sigh*

      Q. Wow that was offtopic...
      A. Not really.

      Read "Class Warfare" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1567510922), and realise that this event (Iraq) had been planned for more than a decade.

      Wakey wakey! Hello CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6. keywords: Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, muppet, puppet, stoppit.

    6. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Tet · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Maybe, just maybe, [...] we are in Iraq to help the Iraq people.

      Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha. Oooh, my aching sides.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    7. Re:Oldest trick in the book by xandroid · · Score: 1

      Yep, that would be Baudelaire.

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    8. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gah! Bloody chemtrails! While I generally get a good chuckle at most conspiracy theories, this one is so stupid that it actively offends me. Seriously, you'd have to be retarded to believe that the government/aliens/major league baseball wwere trying to poison/drug us by spraying poison/drugs out of high-altitude aircraft. 1) the number of officials/airline employees involved in such a program would inevitably lead to the program being revealed and 2) there are a number of less expensive and more effective ways to poison or drug a population (think water supplies).

      I've heard that the goal was not to drug or poison people, but an attempt to control air currents or the weather.

      If people can't wrap their pitiful brains around the basic concept of condensation and immediately jump to the conclusion that "them airplanes is sprayin' posion on us," then our nation's educational system has failed us.

      From what I understand, these trails last much longer than those formed by condensation due to a jet's exhaust. Also, I've never seen a commercial jet form a cross-hatch pattern in the sky, and some images of chemtrails show a jet outfitted with some sort of sprayer apparatus.

  10. Imagine by Renraku · · Score: 1

    I can imagine that they don't do a lot of flying during the day over there. The real interesting thing would be to watch them with a high-powered telescope with night vision attachment.

    You better be walking, with thermal camo, though. They've got sensors everywhere, I'm sure.

    Tinfoil hat not included.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Imagine by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      I can imagine that they don't do a lot of flying during the day over there. The real interesting thing would be to watch them with a high-powered telescope with night vision attachment.

      Yea, strapping on a night-vision high powered telescope and looking into a pair of afterburners sounds pretty interesting.

  11. Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like the Rex84 project where they keep working concentration camps operational that can hold 30 million people total. Infact if you google it there's a website with a list.

    Or the MKUltra project where they tried to find truth syrums and abducted/kidnapped and forced marines, soldiers, and homeless people to do experiments.

    Or the attack on the USS liberty by the Israeli's to trick America into war against their enemies.

    Or the Chemtrails, where they do weather modification experiments using airplanes.

    Or HAARP which produced a fucking aurora borealous over New York not too long ago.

    Then there's the massive underground highway that apparently exists all over the USA that they use at their convenience.

    What did you guys think? The US government, taking damn near 1/3rd of everyone's paycheck PLUS fiat taxing everyone on the planet through printing off dollars PLUS taxing corps up the wazoo isn't going to be doing a lot of secret stuff? How expensive do you really think road paving, policing, and military expenditure really is?

    Do you really believe all that dough halliburton has been getting, now probably nearing 100 billion, is going into the pockets of the wealthy so they can buy tootsie rolls and nice cars? Rummy just admitted that the pentagon can't account for 2 TRILLION! Do you think that just vanished into thin air?

    It isn't logical to believe so I'm afriad.

    1. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by TheCaptain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok...who the heck let Art Bell on here again? Who's turn was it to watch him again?

    2. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ok...who the heck let Art Bell on here again? Who's turn was it to watch him again?

      OMFG mod that one FUNNY!!!! ROFL!!!

    3. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

      I wouldn't be surprised if there's a kernel of truth in all those claims.

      Things that were the realm of conspiracy theory have come out as mostly true before, look at eschelon and carnivore and things of that sort.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by TerenceRSN · · Score: 1

      If FEMA does as good a job with "REX 84" as they did with Katrina relief, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

    5. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Tony · · Score: 4, Informative

      . . . PLUS taxing corps up the wazoo . . .

      The hell they do.

      Corps do *not* get taxed out the wazoo. The tax burden has been shifting to the individual since the advent of federal income tax.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    6. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Hasai · · Score: 1

      What did you guys think? The US government, taking damn near 1/3rd of everyone's paycheck PLUS fiat taxing everyone on the planet through printing off dollars PLUS taxing corps up the wazoo isn't going to be doing a lot of secret stuff? How expensive do you really think road paving, policing, and military expenditure really is?

      Damned expensive, especially when run by incredibly inefficient government bureaucracies.

      . . . . You're off your meds, aren't you?

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    7. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aurora over New York? I searched Google and found no reference..

      link please?

    8. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by TheCaptain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OMFG mod that one FUNNY!!!! ROFL!!!

      I was being serious....

    9. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Saint+Jimmy · · Score: 1

      Hey man, don't bash Art Bell and the Coast to Coast crew. Those people are geniuses. Art Bell makes my workday fly by.

      --
      To alcohol and cigarettes and Mary-Jane to keep me insane doing someone else's cocaine
    10. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, if you ever decide to get out of there, i'll provide food and shelter for a month in Romania.

      It looks like they missed you :P

    11. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by theurge14 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then there's the massive underground highway that apparently exists all over the USA that they use at their convenience.

      Dude, everyone has heard of the The Harriet Tubman Memorial Highway.

    12. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art's wife just died by the way....

      Show some respect

    13. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The above claims imply competance and a lack of horse judges involved. Since even a secret government project to sell weapons to Iran to give the money to a drug dealer in Panama or an incompetant effort to influence Australian politics in 1975 gets out these massive projects listed above are highly unlikely.

    14. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why corporations are taxable *at all* under income tax regulations. All the "income" that a corporation has either gets A) paid to individuals (employees/owners/stockholders/consultants/etc.), where it will be taxed as personal income and where it is currently taxed *twice* for the same income or B) paid to other businesses which will eventually do A) with it, at some point down the line. It just doesn't make any sense to tax corporations *and* individuals. Pick one or the other.

    15. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The tax burden has been shifting to the individual since the advent of federal income tax.

      It doesn't really matter - corporate taxes are just passed on to the customers in the cost of goods. If the goods are sold to another corporation the problem recurses until a citizen winds up paying.

      It would be more honest to just tax citizens. An increase in personal tax rates are more difficult to hide than $1.39 of the Whopper Value Meal you just bought that went to pay federal taxes.

      So, the graph surprises me - politicians typically love to hide taxes - it probably means the corporations are just getting better accountants.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. This is science? My asp it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Slashdot needs a "Pointless Waste of Time, Rumors and Lame Innuendo" section.

    Oh wait ... that is Slashdot.

  13. X-Files already did it by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mulder got into some secret base in disguise (long story), and the military commander of the base didn't even know where the aircraft they were testing came from, and quietly asked Mulder if they had alien technology in them.

  14. Piffle by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know people who have worked at Area 51. Let me just say you conspiracy freaks need a more productive and useful hobby. Put down your Art Bell "end of the world" book and go out and get some sun.

  15. Nothing to see here - please along...literally by BigAlexK · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Area 51 has been the focus of so much attention for so long, that unsuprisingly it contains little of interest any more, at least for those looking for the more exotic objects.

    The alledged testing (I say alledged so you keep reading, because this stuff is documented by multiple testimonies given under oath by verifiable ex-military personnel and ex government contractors) of earth-built anti-gravity discs goes on elsewhere in the Groom range, and they are stored in facilities built into the side of mountains, with the rock faces covered with doors made to look like the rock face itself, obvious given the amount of spy satellites (not all owned by the US military) floating around.

    Other rather more exotic research and command and control exists at various other locations, including an underground facility in the desert at Utah reachable only from the air, also Edwards AFB and other AFBs. This stuff is again knwon about through sworn testimony from verifiable personnel.

    Of course there is a lot of BS about Area 51, aliens, flying saucers (woooo!) etc. And the subject and area attract wackos like wasps to a honeypot. And yes, you can take the nonsense until proven truth line. But there is truth, it is out there, and you can get to it. It's not all rubbish, there are cover ups, and the truth is stranger than fiction. The Aurora spyplace for example has now been verified to exist through testimony, photographs and other documents.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here - please along...literally by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Hell, who knows what the Air Force is really up to these days? I mean...they recently approached the U.S. Department of Energy about doing an experiment into a possible FTL drive for crying out loud....and that's public goings on. Who knows what the hell they're doing in private, inside hidden/classified facilities these days.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here - please along...literally by WAG24601G · · Score: 1

      Interesting comment. Can you cite some of those verifiable sources please? I'd like to read them myself.

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    3. Re:Nothing to see here - please along...literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's BigAlexK. Presumably the K stands for Krycek, which would make him one of the sources himself!

  16. Re:This is science? My asp it is! by Doomedsnowball · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is Unintelligent Design at work. Become one of the unbelievers! These articles are like hunks of meat thrown in the 'gator tank. Don't complain about the cut of the meat, just get out the tank.

    --
    7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
  17. No Denial Necessary by Prototerm · · Score: 1

    See this pen thing in my hand? Just look into the pretty light. You didn't see anything. In fact, neither one of us was ever here!

    (/obligatory movie reference)

    Besides, everyone knows they moved the UFO wreckage to Area 52. What's really scary, though, is not the wreckage itself, but all the alien pr0n they found on board.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
    1. Re:No Denial Necessary by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but there's a very real correlation of when aliens have visited, and when tentacle hentai came about.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
  18. maps.google.com by gnuLNX · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Search for area 51. Pretty darned cool!

    --
    what?
  19. Damn straight! by Deagol · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Off to Room 101 all those subversives must go. They're not human, after all -- it's not like they bleed the same as you or I.

    Pity your opinion is held by such a large number of people.

  20. NASA officials did not feel that the civilian agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe it was just a decoy?

  21. Typical on conspiracy stories by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0

    The truth is rated a troll. Fuck you, mods.

    1. Re:Typical on conspiracy stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The truth is rated a troll. Fuck you, mods.

      Wow, talk about quiet desperation!

    2. Re:Typical on conspiracy stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you can start by telling us what they do at Area 51. Otherwise, you sound like a troll trying to start trouble.

    3. Re:Typical on conspiracy stories by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      See above response. It's just black budget military stuff- planes, lasers and the usual suspects. If you read the right periodicals you can figure it out. No aliens or ancient magic.

      I just find all this conspiracy crap on Slashdot embarassing. The geek community used to be on the forefront of skepticism on this goofy crap. Now it laps it up like a born again Christian eats of the words of Jerry Falwell.

  22. Say it ain't so by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

    The US gov't in volved in denials and cover-ups? Uncle Sam wouldn't do that. I believe my gov't when it says there is nothing of interest at area 51. Wanna buy a bridge in NYC?

    --
    Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
  23. Tried zooming in to close by MECC · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the map said "We're sorry, but your IP address, 127.0.0.1, has been logged. Please remain seated."

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Tried zooming in to close by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      You'll have nothing to fear - they'll just be searching themselves...

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
  24. Protect and Serve by Tony · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me.

    If what's going on now is protection, count me out. I try to live a moral life. If the government does something in my name, it damned well better be done in a moral fashion, and not the immoral and illegal current activities.

    The "war on terror" is a strawman, to start with. The US was attacked by a single group, with known leaders. It was with them we have issues, not some undefined group of "terrorists," but a very well-defined group originally trained up by the US to fight in Afghanistan in the '80s. We know who the enemy is; we just aren't fighting him very effectively.

    Now, how far should the government's protection go? Since the number of people who die in auto accidents is orders of magnitude greater than the deaths in the US due to terrorist activities, should we spend orders of magnitude more money patrolling the roads, just to protect you from a potential accident? Or maybe we should just give up cars entirely. That way, we couldn't die due to accidents on the road.

    You are more likely to die from the flu than a terrorist attack. Shouldn't the government spend more money on flu vaccines? You are more likely to be shot by someone you know than shot by a terrorist. Shouldn't the government protect you by taking away all firearms?

    Finally, the US government's current actions are increasing the likelihood of dying at the hands of terrorists, not decreasing the risk. If the US government had not betrayed us (and I mean everyone in the world, not just US citizens), if they had behaved morally instead of selfishly and evilly, we would be less likely to suffer a terrorist attack.

    Instead, they chose the route to US military dominance and empirialism in the Middle East, no matter the cost. The economic and social and moral fallout from this little adventure will follow the US for many, many years.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Protect and Serve by Pragmatix · · Score: 1
      You comparison to the flu is spot on. The flu kills around 6 to 10 times more people in a single year than died in the 9-11 attacks. Yet we have had vaccine shortages which could have been prevent by the government spending a tiny fraction of what the 'war on terror' has cost us.

      if they had behaved morally instead of selfishly and evilly, we would be less likely to suffer a terrorist attack
      I believe this is a fallacy. The US is certainly to blame in parts for many problems in the world due to our involvement in dictatorships and the like, but your statement implies that somehow the 'terrorists' are moral and not selish and evil.

      One of the reason's why Bin Laden wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Islam and US imperialism, and everything to do with his ambition to overthrow the Saudi Government.

    2. Re:Protect and Serve by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Speaking on the probabilities of dying, you are more likely to die of murder in Washington DC than by military action in Iraq.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    3. Re:Protect and Serve by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look, I know we people with opposed political views are supposed to ridicule, spew bile, etc., but I don't mean this that way, and I hope you don't take it that way.

      1. You describe Al-Qaeda as "a very well-defined group originally trained up by the US to fight in Afghanistan in the '80s."

      It's difficult to believe that anyone familiar with Al-Qaeda would describe it this way. Al-Qaeda is not IBM; it is not "well-defined" in any sense I am familiar with. It is a loose confederation of individuals and cells who all have varying motivations. Individuals involved with Al-Qaeda may or may not belong to other terrorist groups, sometimes concurrently. Indeed, Al Qaeda is *ill* defined.

      This sort of leads into my next point. Saying Al-Qaeda was "trained by the U.S. to fight in Afghanistan" suggest there is a more-or-less linear, well-defined process or relationship. There is nothing of the sort. First, there was no such thing as "Al-Qaeda" back then. The Afghan mujahadeen began resisting Soviet occupation before the U.S. got involved. Later, *some* of those mujahadeen got involved, at different times, with Al-Qaeda.

      2. You write several things along the lines of "You are more likely to die from the flu than a terrorist attack. Shouldn't the government spend more money on flu vaccines?"

      Many, many people, including many anti-war liberals, have noted the fallaciousness of this line of thinking. Put it this way -- in the month of December, 1941, many, many more Americans died of [flu/auto accidents/heart disease/etc. etc. etc.] than died at Pearl Harbor. Does this mean Roosevelt should have put "Fighting World War II" in a list of priorities organized by the number of fatalities? Of course not -- that would be absurd.

      (Jim Emerson, the quite liberal blogger on rogerebert.suntimes.com, provides another very good takedown of this argument here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20051130/SCANNERS/51130004 )

      3. You categorically state: "US government's current actions are increasing the likelihood of dying at the hands of terrorists, not decreasing the risk." You present no evidence for this, because, of course, you can't -- there is none. Sure, it's a *possibility,* but you state it as empirical fact. Meanwhile, there is *anecdotal* evidence that the opposite is true. After 9/11, who would have guessed that it would be five years and counting, and we still haven't experienced another major terrorist attack? Remember, many of the people who perpetrated 9/11 (including, presumably, the mastermind) are still out there. Logic suggests that, if they *could* have attacked again in the last five years, they would have.

      4. Finally, you suggest the American goal is "US military dominance and empirialism in the Middle East."

      Well, let's take a look at the places the U.S. has invaded, and their current governments. France - democracy. Germany - democracy (except the part we didn't occupy, and even that eventually democratized when it reunited with the part that we did). Japan - democracy. Phillipines - democracy. Panama - democracy. Grenada - democracy. Korea - democracy (except the part we didn't occupy). Vietnam, where we failed - dictatorship.

      I just don't get it. The U.S. has certainly committed sins, sometime egregious ones. But our general philosphy is clear -- to promote democracy and *self* government. Using "imperialism" in that sense simply serves to drain any meaning from the word.

      Bush has stated that our goal is to a) free the Iraqi people from one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, then b) help the Iraqi people form a new, democratic government of the people. So far, everything that has happened has borne this out.

      I don't mean to ramble here, I just find this whole thing inexplicable. You talk about the "moral" fallout. So do I understand that the "moral" thing to do would have been to leave millions of people to suffer under a murdering, torturing, fascist regime? I just don't get it.

                - AJ

    4. Re:Protect and Serve by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Regarding Al-Qaeda training - correct, the group as such was not supported by the US, however many of it's senior members were, and it seems sensible to look at this problem, and investigate how somthing similar could be avoided in the future.

      Regarding increased risk of terrorist attacks - you are leaving out the attacks which did happen. London subway, Madrid trains, Bali and the insurgency in Iraq. Right now it's easier to attack Americans in Iraq than to do so in the US. However there is no reason to believe that this will stay the same once US troops withdraw. So while there is no proof that the attack on Iraq has made Americans less save (and you are correct, there can't be proof for that) there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence for that returning in caskets to the US.

      Regarding military dominance - well some of the architects of the current war have been advocating US imperialism quite fervently (e.g. Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century

      Also, when describing US policy of the past - please don't leave out the times the US brought down democratic governments and supported terrorism.

  25. Than I...? by ickeicke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Than i fucking retard what? Try to complete a sentence for once.

    I am sorry i made a common spelling error, but English isn't my first language and I'd like to see you write fluent Dutch.

    Lame Anonymous Coward.

    --
    Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
  26. This will help explain a lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.area51-game.com/
    "The conspiracy is no longer a theory."
    Well, good to know it's all true, 100%.

  27. Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko by trygstad · · Score: 1

    "...at once point (probably a while ago) we did "capture" a MiG or whatever. I think it went along the lines that he had to land for mechanical failure or we forced him to land or something. In any case, what makes the story stand out is that we eventaully sent the MiG back in several boxes (ie, after we'd taken it apart to see what it had). Any idea if this is true?" Absolutely! Lt. Victor Belenko of the Soviet Air Force actually defected and flew his MIG-25 to Japan. There is a truly outstanding book about this: Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko by John Barron. I highly recommend this book as it is a very revealing look at what life in the Soviet Union was like even for "elite" comrades like fighter pilots.

    1. Re:Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The MiG-25 had everybody scared to death. Here was a super interceptor the likes of which the world had never seen. How could the USSR make such an advanced machine! If you weren't scared, you were impressed. Or both.

      And then we got our hands on a MiG-25 and found out..... it wasn't advanced at all, just a big fighter with a ton of horsepower. It was closer to strapping a man on a Chinese New Year rocket than it was a sophisticated machine of doom. Very low tech.

      As always, the brass and politicians worked under strange math:

      If the enemy threat was really bad, they asked for lots of money.

      If the enemy threat turned out to be not so bad or a freaking joke, they still asked for the same money and usually hyped up the threat anwyay until they started believing their own reports.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    2. Re:Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      The MiG-25 was apparently built to combat the USAF B-70 Valkyrie and/or the A-11 (precursor to the SR-71). Neither of which ever went into production.

      It seems all sides in the cold war were subject to needless speculation.

  28. Hehe P&T:Bullshit was right. by AzraelKans · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The govt is just not very good at keeping secrets, "Area 51" has to be one of the least well kept secrets in the world, how can conspiracy theorist beleve in huge cover ups such as a JFK conspiracy, fake moon landings or "aliens" when these people arent competent enough to hide a damn building!?

    One thing though, if they were unable to "hide" this base, probably newer secret bases have been made underground. They could still be easily located with a satellite thermal scanning (or similar tech). But hey at least they wouldnt appear clear as daylight in satellites.

    --
    Go ahead MOD my day!
    More opinions here
    1. Re:Hehe P&T:Bullshit was right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "One thing though, if they were unable to "hide" this base, probably newer secret bases have been made underground."

                The tip of the iceberg my friend. Area 51 IS underground! In fact I'm typing this out of the underground facility as we speak and my fascist boss, sitting in the cubicle next to me has no idea I'm postinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

    2. Re:Hehe P&T:Bullshit was right. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Actually, the government excels at keeping secrets. For example, you obviously have no clue that the government revealed the existence of Area 51 on purpose, in order to deflect attention from their real secret research facilities.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  29. They don't care by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They don't care you to see Area 51, but they won't say so. If they really didn't want you to see, you wouldn't have those high resolution shots on Google Earth, which don't show anything "interesting", looks just like any other AFB.

    Btw, why are such areas as that so low-res on Google Map while so good on Google Earth? Also, why are some governmental building edited out in Google Maps, while apparently (didn't check all) not in Google Earth??

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:They don't care by MaXiMiUS · · Score: 0

      Area 51 is blotted out in Google Earth as well, so don't think it's just you.

      --
      It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
    2. Re:They don't care by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      No, I checked, in Google Earth, Area 51 and all it's surrounding atomic bombs craters appear perfectly sharply, as in Google Maps it looks very blurry. Last time I check too, the White House was covered on Google maps, and on google Earth it's not. Mysterious...

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:They don't care by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      " They don't care you to see Area 51, but they won't say so."

          It's not necessary the area or the base that they don't want you to see, it's what's inside the hangers. No, I'm not talking about alien autopsies or captured intergalactic cruisers, but research and prototype military aircraft. The military isn't a Detroit motor company, where they intentionally allow (or even arrange) "spy" photos of test cars to get the magazine-readers excited. ;-)

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  30. The best kept secrets... by rnws · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...are what's going on at sites 1 through 50.

    I mean, this is site number 51 - what's going on at the first fifty?!

    1. Re:The best kept secrets... by bourne · · Score: 1
      I mean, this is site number 51 - what's going on at the first fifty?!
      The first 49 were destroyed before construction finished, and area 50 mysteriously disappeared only weeks before it was scheduled to go operational.
    2. Re:The best kept secrets... by Starsmore · · Score: 1

      So does that mean Area 50 will be showing up in the middle of Podunk, Nebraska in a few years, complete with the guy in Dave's spacesuit?

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  31. Area 51? Been there. by Da3vid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Back in college, another guy and I went out on a road trip across the American southwest. We hit Carlsbad Caverns, White Sands, the Painted Desert, Grand Canyon, Las Vegas and... Area 51. It was a fun trip.

    We left Las Vegas early in the morning (late at night?) at about 8 am. By about 10 am, we found ourselves in the middle of a very bland highway, not quite large enough to pass a car but there was no need anyways. Nothing but low lying brush, and hills seen far in the distance. It was otherwise completely flat. Then, we hit our turn signal, at the black mailbox. Thats how you know when to turn... there is a mysterious, good sized, and seemingly random black mailbox sitting out there, so we turned. After going through miles of roads (with many intersections, mind you) through the desert, we eventually hit the hills in the distance, and found ourselves approaching a small valley leading into them.

    We pull up to a pair of sign groupings. One on the left, and one on the right. There were orange markers every 5 feet or so to mark a perimeter. We stopped right before the signs, staying safely on our side. As we pull up to the signs, we see about 250 feet away on top of a small hill, a large black truck pulls up and stops on the hill. True story.

    Now, my friend is a bit crazier than I. Mind you, these signs read things like "Use of Deadly Force Authorized" "Military Installation Restricted Access" "Photography Prohibited" and all sorts of other things that make you wary of them. So, he opens up the car door and kneels behind it and starts taking pictures of the signs. After photographing the photography prohibited sign that was right next to the use of deadly force authorized sign, he gets a real good idea. He wants to talk to the man in the truck.

    Mind you, the orange markers that mark the perimeter go about a quarter way up the hill that the truck is on. So, he hikes over there and is yelling up at this guy. Meanwhile, I'm watching the whole thing go down through the camera. I see my friend walking the line, yelling like a madman. I see the guy in the truck talking into his radio, reach into his backseat and pick up a shotgun. I'm thinking, "This is no good. I'm going to have to drive back to this guy's mother and tell her that I watched her son die." and that was the best case scenario I was thinking of, not the "Oh man, if I see them kill him, they'll kill me in the cover up, too" train of thought. Eventually, the man in the truck rolls down his window and yells something sufficiently threatening to make my friend decide its time to go. And we do. We drive away back to Las Vegas. All in all, the trip was long for such a short sight. Not that great of a trip really, but one hell of a story.

    -Da3vid-

  32. More info, please by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I know people who have worked at Area 51. Let me just say you conspiracy freaks need a more productive and useful hobby. Put down your Art Bell "end of the world" book and go out and get some sun.

    Really? Who are the people you know and what did they tell you?


    -FL

    1. Re:More info, please by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Obviously they could tell me no detials, but it's just typical black budget stuff. Advanced aircraft and some snti-missile stuff is what I've been told. There's no UFOs or magical mind control devices or whatever the conspiracy of the week is.

    2. Re:More info, please by hkb · · Score: 1

      I additionally met an individual who served at A51. These are normal people who work there. They don't run around in black hats and black cloaks.

      When he was first stationed at our base, people thought he was AFOSI because his orders had "**DATA MASKED**" all over it (even his last post field).

      He was very likeable and took good care of/stood up for us younger avionics troops. One night on mid-shift the conversation on the work truck steered towards F117 systems and it vaguely came out that that was where he came from. He didn't say hardly anything at all, but what he did intimate seemed to indicate test aircraft, UAVs, and cruise missile stuff. When UFOs were mentioned he just laughed it off. It was a very weird conversation amongst us, because we got a lot of information without him actually violating any oaths, I think.

      Personally seeing his orders (someone photocopied them and passed them around and rumors flew), and knowing his high level of integrity, I totally believe that he worked at A51. He was totally how a perfect NCO should be, too bad there weren't more like him.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    3. Re:More info, please by hkb · · Score: 1

      Heh whoops, sucks when you accidently post something as a Non-AC.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    4. Re:More info, please by periol · · Score: 1

      There's no UFOs or magical mind control devices or whatever the conspiracy of the week is.

      at least, not that you can remember...

  33. What really happened in 1974 by helicologic · · Score: 1

    It was the Spring of 1974. Rosemary Woods had just erased 18 1/2 minutes from a tape lying around the office when she opened a canister of undeveloped film that someone from NASA had sent, exposing it to the light. It was an accident, honest!

    1. Re:What really happened in 1974 by AlienSlav · · Score: 1

      Alice's resturant is exactly 18 1/2 min long Nixon's fav tune back then yup!
      AlienSlav>)

  34. FEMA and Katrina by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    If FEMA does as good a job with "REX 84" as they did with Katrina relief, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

    FEMA got exactly what they wanted out of Katrina.

    The sports dome concentration camp was a working excercise, not a failure. You have every reason to be concerned.


    -FL

    1. Re:FEMA and Katrina by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      FEMA got exactly what they wanted out of Katrina. The sports dome concentration camp was a working excercise, not a failure.

      It would be an interesting theory if the Superdome refuge center were a FEMA project.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  35. Google Maps/Earth and coverups by staplin · · Score: 1

    Btw, why are such areas as that so low-res on Google Map while so good on Google Earth? Also, why are some governmental building edited out in Google Maps, while apparently (didn't check all) not in Google Earth??

    I imagine the resolution on Google Maps is restricted because of the sheer number of pre-cached tiles at every possible resolution it would take to make it available to a huge number of users simultaneously. It's simpler to just restrict that and keep the data set smaller. Now in Google Maps, I imagine they can predict where to pre-cache imagery based on where the user is browsing with direct feedback from the client.

    As for "governmental building edited out", check out this article at NYTimes, where Andrew McLaughlin, a senior policy counsel at Google rebuffs this idea. "Nor, he said, has the United States government ever asked Google to remove information."

    And more specifically, "For a brief period, photos of the White House and adjacent buildings that the United States Geological Survey provided to Google Earth showed up with certain details obscured, because the government had decided that showing details like rooftop helicopter landing pads was a security risk. Google has since replaced those images with unaltered photographs of the area taken by Sanborn, a mapping and imagery company, further illustrating the difficulty of trying to control such information."

  36. On a similar note by Saint+Jimmy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did anyone see the press release from a few months ago where SETI announced that if they ever do recieve contact from extraterrestrials they will inform the US government before the media and allow the government to decide whether to release the information to the general population? What a bunch of bullshit. I expected better of SETI. They just lost privilges to use my computer for computing while I'm not using it...

    --
    To alcohol and cigarettes and Mary-Jane to keep me insane doing someone else's cocaine
    1. Re:On a similar note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah. Did you really believe SETI would release the information to the public at the same time it realeased it's information to the government regarding alien contact? That the public would get a non-filtered honest report? Hahaha. You're killin' me. really.

    2. Re:On a similar note by OneFix · · Score: 1

      I would have to say that this does not sound like a bad idea to me. If such an event were to be recorded, there would likely be widespread impact. I figure a finding of this nature would have an effect on every facet of our lives... I don't think it would be a bad idea to let the government know...which would probably inform other governments, NASA, maybe a few key scientists (to verify the data), prepare a new budget (further research, missions, etc), and probably a few more folks that I can't think of right now (key spiritual leaders?)...if they didn't do that, I would probably be upset...

      But it's even more likely that a single event would not trigger any such plan. It's more likely that it would gradually become public knowledge...first within SETI (the group of people actually interested in this sort of thing and the first to be called upon to verify the data), then among scientists and academics, and eventually become public knowledge through research, publications, and those working with said academics...

  37. Sharks. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Existence in this reality will always be problematic.

    Your points are only valid in as much as there are people out there who would try to hurt or abuse you for personal or national gain if they learn your secret information.

    In a world where there are Sharks like this, there will inevitably be Sharks within your own walls. It's a flaw in the human condition and therefore, as we have seen from countless examples, the systems we use to keep secrets will be abused by Sharks trying to hurt the people they are supposed to protect for their personal gain.

    It is a not necessarily a no-win situation. You can pursue a life which does not interest Sharks, you can learn how to avoid, repel and kill Sharks on a personal level, or you can leave the Shark Tank altogether.

    Believing, however, that the secret organizations and the government in general is benign and exists with the pure intent to help you and protect you, is like swimming with your eyes shut. The Sharks like that.


    -FL

  38. Crash debris by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Also let's assume a crashed plane throws parts as far as 500 feet.

    Bad assumption. I've been involved in two private aircraft crash investigations, including securing the scenes for one of them. Debris from the first was isolated to the hole it dug. The other was spread over a mile, with the key components in explaining the crash being found half a mile from the spot where the majority of the aircraft impacted.

    A previous incident at the same airport (AF tanker exploded overhead) rained debris over many square miles. Catastrophic failures, which can happen when pushing aircraft to their limits, do not make for compact crash sites or easy recovery of all debris.

  39. Offtopic by JamesR2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How come /. is not vulnerable to the /. effect? Text only? Super servers?

    1. Re:Offtopic by Walker2323 · · Score: 0

      Alien technology reverse engineered and redeveloped at Area 51.

    2. Re:Offtopic by Spaceman40 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Slashdot effect is a drop in the bucket. When I worked for IMDB, they quoted me the statistics from Amazon (this was several years ago): Amazon gets more hits every hour or so than Slashdot gets every day (or something like that).

      The effect only really affects those servers that aren't used to a large load.

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  40. Disappointing recent history of secret aircraft by Animats · · Score: 1
    The last few decades have been disappointing for secret aircraft projects. The really good ones all started under Eisenhower - the U2, the SR-71, the balloon trains (the source of the Roswell rumors), the Corona spy satellites, and the DEW line. Many of them really paid off in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Nixon's secret legacies seem to mostly have been disasters. Gerald Ford authorized the stealth aircraft program, which paid off under Carter, who expanded it. Reagan spent vast amounts of money on defense, but his big breakthrough projects (Star Wars and the hypersonic transport) were flops. The USAF has had a huge "black" budget since Reagan, but it doesn't seem to have resulted in any major war-winning technologies. Post-Reagan, we're too close to current technology to expect much to be known.

    Most of the big successes came from the Lockheed "Skunk Works". The Skunk Works is gone. The hangars in Burbank were abandoned, and have now been demolished. Another great R&D center lost.

    1. Re:Disappointing recent history of secret aircraft by RcktMan77 · · Score: 1

      The Skunk Works is still around...just moved from Burbank.

    2. Re:Disappointing recent history of secret aircraft by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      All the action is in drones these days, and R&D is humming along quite nicely in that area.

      Besides, the problem space for new military technology keeps changing. High altitude stealth reconnaissance planes were important for a time. Now we get better results from satellites in most cases. Also, as technology becomes more mainstream, radical new R&D programs in that field become less necessary. It's more cost effective to make the last generation of exotic technology a standard feature of this generation's off-the-shelf weapons system.

      Anyway, the big problem space for military R&D right now seems to be in the field of automation. You shouldn't have to look to hard to find lots of really interesting information about all the exciting new developments just in the past few years, in that field.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Disappointing recent history of secret aircraft by Animats · · Score: 1
      What's left of it is called "Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs", and it's in Palmdale.

      They're looking for a web designer.

  41. Area 51 is irrelevant by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    After Area 51 became so well-known, the UFOs and aliens were all moved to Area 52. Now the only purpose of Area 51 is to draw attention away from what's really going on.

    Similarly, once everyone learned about the UN's black helicopters, they repainted them in other colors.

  42. Love your dictator by ericspinder · · Score: 1
    Early reports were that he had torn up a picture of his girlfriend, but North Korean pilots were not allowed to have girlfriends during the war.
    Personally, I cannot imagine living the forced personality cult, that has existed in NK for like the last 60 years. Say what you will about the authoritarian governments which have creep-ed in for the last decade here in the U.S., Russia, and other places, NK takes special (dis)honors for the length and severity of it's regime.
    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    1. Re:Love your dictator by operagost · · Score: 1
      Say what you will about the authoritarian governments which have creep-ed in for the last decade here in the U.S., Russia, and other places
      What I will say is... what the heck are you talking about? By the way, it's "crept."
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  43. Catastrophic Errors by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Interesting, I think you should write the producers of the History Channel's 'History's Mysteries' and ask them how could they have gotten it all so wrong?
    I am astonished at how you know more about Area 51 than their writers did.

    Just for fun, can you post some of the links you have seen about the 1-2 meter resolution photos of Area 51? We all would love to see them.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Catastrophic Errors by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      There's this thing called "google": www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm

  44. NASA Tether Experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone remember the NASA tether experiment? Is the video footage (torrent) censored, officially released or what?

  45. What do you make of this? by aconkling · · Score: 1
    I know it's out of context, but did this quote make anyone else wonder?

    A cover note to the memorandum, apparently written by the Director of Central Intelligence William Colby himself, stated that "I confessed some question over need to protect since [...] If exposed don't we just say classified USAF work is done there?"
    (emphasis mine)
  46. Conspiracy theorists say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob Lazarus told us the truth, as Area51 is full of alien and reptile nazi "Vril" and "Thule" saucer craft. The yankee are trying to find a remedy against the reptile nazi, who will come out of the Antarctica in 2045 and take over the world with their wunderwaffen and clone army. The saucers have anti-gravity propulsion which uses liquid mercury boiling in iron pots. These are derived from the ancient age aryan "vimana" saucers, which can deliver chakra blasts on the enemy.

  47. They admitted the base exists jus not whats inside by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    Everybody already knows they've already admitted that the base exists, its just they deny that its used to store aliens - which is something any self-respecting person would do - lest the rest of the world think they are crazy. The whole lakebed where the base is at is just a damn airfield for prototype planes - not a storage place for dead aliens or a tunnel to hell.

    And BTW: there ARE other bases in the area, named with similar "Area #", with a random number.

  48. Area 51 not on FAA maps by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    I was amused to see that while you can get a perfectly good picture of Area 51 from Google Maps, Area 51 does not show on the FAA aircraft navigation charts (e.g. the Las Vegas VFR sectional chart). Groom Lake itself is on the map, but there is no sign of any aircraft facilities.

    The Las Vegas chart is also the only one I've seen that threatens deadly force if you don't do as you're told by The Authorities.

    The whole point of these charts is to provide information to pilots, including the nearest place to land if they're in trouble. Suppressing Area 51 must have taken some pretty high-level string-pulling.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Area 51 not on FAA maps by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it would have been pretty stupid to set up a secret facility such that any asshat could land there with impunity, simply by faking mechanical difficulties with their aircraft.

      Seems to me the civilian pilot community is much better off being absolutely clear that Area 51 isn't an option, and getting in the habit of having other contingency plans besides landing at Groom Lake.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  49. Engine mechanics of alien ships. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I ran across this piece. . .

    Q: Well, I can't go any further with that because I know nothing about rail-guns, not even what they are. Now, let me read this text:

    "I have recently come into possession of a paper on magneto-gravitics and field resonance systems, presented by A.C. Holt from NASA Johnson Space Center to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' 16th Joint Propulsion Conference, June 30-July 2, 1980. Holt presents a project using an already existing system known as the Coherent Field and Energy Resonance System (CoFERS) [probably located at Los Alamos Labs' High Magnetic Field Research Laboratory]. CoFERS utilizes a toroidal-shaped energy guide with mega gauss magnetic field sources located along radius vectors equally spaced around the toroid. CoFERS is shaped like a thick flying disc. Holt goes on to say: "By converying an object's normal space-time energy pattern to an energy pattern which differs substantially from the normal pattern, the gravitational forces acting on the object are changed. The object's new pattern interacts with the surrounding space-time and virtual energy patterns, such that the interactive forces are substantially altered. The alteration of the characteristics of the continuous field of force results in the apparent motion of the object *through space-time*." [...] "Since the gravitational forces acting on the propulsion system can be quickly altered to achieve the desired motion, the *spacecraft* can make right-angle turns at very-high velocities without adversely affecting the crew or system elements. The effective gravitational field the *spacecraft/ aircraft* experiences can be nearly simultaneously reoriented at a 90-degree angle, resulting in a smooth continuous motion as far as the occupants are concerned." [ ... ] "The gravimagnetic system is perhaps best suited for use in and around ... a large mass such as the Earth." "While the gravimagnetic system is likely to be the first field-dependent propulsion system developed, the field resonance system will **bring stellar and galactic travel out of the realm of science fiction**. The field resonance system artificially generates an energy pattern which precisely matches or resonates with a virtual pattern associated with a distent space-time point. According to the model, if a fundamental or precise resonance is established, (using hydro magnetic wave fine- tuning techniques), the spacecraft will be very strongly and equally repelled by surrounding virtual patterns. At the same time, through the virtual many-dimensional structure of space-time, a very strong attraction with the virtual pattern of a distant space-time point will exist. ...this
    combination of very strong forces will result in the translocation of the spacecraft from its initial position through the many-dimensional virtual structure to the distant space-time point. [ ... ] "A space-time 'jump' already appears to be supported by astrophysical research."

    Having read this text, my thought is that it is very similar to what I was talking about earlier today, and which was explicated by Karl von Eckertshausen in regards to the 'violin allegory.' That is, that a violin string tuned to a particular pitch, if plucked, will cause the identical string on another violin across the room tuned to the same pitch to sound also. However, it seems that what they are doing here is setting up a 'pitch' in this object which actually exists somewhere else. And, by creating this resonance, it 'becomes' or disappears from this point in space/time where its resonance is no longer appropriate, and reappears at the point in space/time where the 'tuned resonance' actually exists. It is both virtual and real. Is this text on the right track, and am I understanding it correctly?

    A: Propulsion system for 3rd and 4th density Alien spacecraft.

    Q: That is the propulsion system?

    A: Very close, yes.

    Real or not? I tend to giv

    1. Re:Engine mechanics of alien ships. . . by Aranth+Brainfire · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just be careful, if you don't realign your field harmonics and vent the gauss magnetic field sources once in a while, it could blow up!

      --
      "Quoting yourself is stupid." -Me
    2. Re:Engine mechanics of alien ships. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the ship is designed so that we can eject the warp core when it breaches, and why we keep the matter-antimatter nacelles out on pylons away from the main body of the ship.

    3. Re:Engine mechanics of alien ships. . . by TropicalCoder · · Score: 0

      You neglected to give us any reference, so I did a little research, expecting to discover this was the writtings of some UFO buff. Then I found this reference...

      "Prospects for a Breakthrough in Field Dependent Propulsion" by A.C. Holt you can order it from AeroPlus Dispatch 1722 Gilbreth Road Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (800)-662-AERO The paper/conference number is AIAA-80-1233 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), June 30-July 2, 1980 -16th Annual Conference. - Rich Boylan

      I was very surprised that it was atributed to a credible source. The obvious next step was to verify that source, and sure enough, it is real. Googling AIAA-80-1233 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) led to this...

      http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTabl e=mtgpaper&gID=92436

      Abstract If a breakthrough in space'timelfield physics is achieved in the early 1980'8, tvo advanced types of field-dependent "propulsion" systems could be developed and tested in the early 1990's. The two propulsion types are (1) Gravimagnetie e - multipurpose propulsion systems vhich utilize the "gravitational" effects of coherent electromagnetic .energy configurations, and (2) Field Resonance Systems - deep-space propulsion systems vhich initiate extreme but localized changes in the nonlinear coordinate transformation properties of space-time ("hyperspace jmps"). Preliminary analyses of astrophysical systems support a nev theoretical model dich describes the space-timelfield interactions utilized by these "propulsion" systems.

      Quite facinating!

  50. Syrian Migs are worthless... here's why.. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Yes. But you see... the Migs the Soviet Union sold to Middle East crackpots where in no way the same machines that defend the Motherland. For starters the export machines have a crippled electronics package, lower quality radar and I'm sure other parameters of the plane have also been considerably downgraded. Capturing these machines didn't tell the analysts much about what the real McCoy can do. This incidentally is why it is so extremely important for nations like India and China to develop their own weapon systems.

    1. Re:Syrian Migs are worthless... here's why.. by ptomblin · · Score: 1

      Has it ever been definitely proven that the Soviet claims that their domestic versions were better wasn't just propoganda and ass-covering?

      Well, considering that the only ones the US and our allies saw in battle were the export versions, it's kind of a moot point.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    2. Re:Syrian Migs are worthless... here's why.. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      The domestic version is usually much better than the crap sold to shitheads. That's why if I were a shithead with a towel around my head I wouldn't buy anything american.

  51. Google maps: Area 51 by !emus · · Score: 0

    Instead of viewing area 51 in google maps by entering its coordinates, you can simply search for Area 51 and it pops right up.

    --
    "It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss
    With all these marbles in my mouth
    "
  52. MiG-15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MiG-15 in question, for which the reward money was paid, is now in the Wright Patterson AFB museum in Ohio. I remember seeing it as a kid and just a few days ago read about it in the book I purchased at the museum at that time.

  53. Wrong Location by Hrdina · · Score: 1

    They actually got photos of Area 51-A.

  54. black helicopter camouflage by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    I heard they painted them pink

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  55. lat: 3714'28.70"N lon: 11549'21.46"W by E10Reads · · Score: 1

    I think the parent is on to something. If you check out Google Earth lat: 3714'28.70"N lon: 11549'21.46"W you can make out what appears to be a baseball diamond. Now do you think that the government and the MLB aren't in cahoots?

  56. big deal by sick_nerd · · Score: 1
    So what?

    You can access full-colour, high-quality (well, not thaat bad) from google earth just by typing area 51 into the search bar.

    there are a milion diferent ways to say 'lol'. Its a pity that no-ones laughing.

  57. There ARE UFOs at Area 51 by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Back when the SR71 Blackbird, U2 Spyplane, B2 Bomber, F117 Nighthawk and other "secret" aircraft were being developed out at Groom Lake, no-one outside of the military knew about them. Therefore, anyone non-military seeing one flying overhead near Area 51 would be able to legitimatly claim that they saw an Unidentified Flying Object. I wouldnt be surprised if the US Air Force is testing (or planning to test) the next "black" aircraft out at Groom Lake. (I saw a documentary somewhere about a "secret" triangular aircraft supposedly called the Aurora)

    1. Re:There ARE UFOs at Area 51 by farqhuarson · · Score: 1

      I think that documentary was called "X-files".

      --
      sig this
  58. Area 51 on google maps by name by bollucks · · Score: 1

    Try entering just "area 51" in the search dialog box of http://maps.google.com/

  59. Keeping an honest Gov't honest by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    I accept that governments have legitimate reasons for keeping secrets from their populace.

    However, I think that there is an important bit of self-examination that needs to take place on the part of those in government. This can be summed up in one question: If the people of this country were to find out tomorrow what I've been doing, would they approve?

    Developing things like the SR-71 or other advanced defense technologies would probably be seen as legitimate by most of the U.S. population. On the other hand, developing, say, biological weapons to use against civilians would probably not. Sooner or later, every secret will get out. The Blackbird did, the F-117 did, the Trinity project did, Watergate did, and the testing of Syphilis study on poor Blacks did, the use of the Navajo language as a code in WWII did. Secrecy is temporary, but some revelations are met with approval, and some with outrage.

    If you are a politician, military leader, intelligence operative, or anything of the sort, consider: Sooner or later, your child or grandchild will learn about what you did, When that happens, will you be proud? If everyone in government asked him/herself this every day, a lot of scandals would be averted.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  60. This Year's Season... by mjohnson13 · · Score: 1

    Do my eyes fail me, or is that a baseball diamond in the NW corner of the Google Earth map of Area 51?

    I'd heard that the ballclub from Sirius is looking to do better this year. Last year was a real dog for them... But I'd heard that the team from Betelgeuse are looking to take the Universal Series this year, and I think that they have the arms to do it... Also, I think that the Astros are looking to draft that hot young prospect from Rigel, so... Looks like it'll be a great season!

    Cheers...

  61. Federal mal-intent by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    It would be an interesting theory if the Superdome refuge center were a FEMA project.

    Don't get caught in hair-splitting.

    The primary federal measures, of which FEMA is a tool, were geared toward keeping outside and civilian rescue/aid efforts away, and toward delaying the execution of emergency aid worker duties for several days after Katrina had struck. The Superdome travesty was a direct result of deliberate federal mal-intent.


    -FL

    1. Re:Federal mal-intent by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The primary federal measures, of which FEMA is a tool, were geared toward keeping outside and civilian rescue/aid efforts away, and toward delaying the execution of emergency aid worker duties for several days after Katrina had struck. The Superdome travesty was a direct result of deliberate federal mal-intent.

      So when the LA Governor's office ordered the Red Cross to stay out of the Superdome - they were puppets of FEMA?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  62. Nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Somebody Else's Problem.

  63. now is years later, after president said its ok to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she's discussing it now, years later, after the president gave her the ok to go and discuss,
    after the reporters got the ok to write the story, after EVERYBODY STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT, YEARS AFTER ITS BEEN GOING ON YOU DILLHOLE

  64. Blanco was a dupe. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    So when the LA Governor's office ordered the Red Cross to stay out of the Superdome - they were puppets of FEMA?

    Nobody is FEMA's puppet. FEMA is a tool of the Federal government.

    However, the stories I read early on during the crisis painted a picture where Blanco was following advisement offered by FEMA to restrict aid to the city in order to expedite evacuation. In this same spirit, the governor was told not to send in the city's fleet of 500 busses, because FEMA advised that they did not have air conditioning which could be dangerous to the victims, and that the state should wait until FEMA supplied better transport. She followed these and other instructions for two days until it became obvious that the feds were not planning to help, at which point she acted on her own.

    And keep in mind, it was FEMA which did the bulk of rescue-prevention. They were certainly not acting under state orders or advisement.

    The spin which has Blanco deliberately twiddling her thumbs by not making formal requests for federal assistance are also patently false. She asked and was ignored. The feds claimed to have taken two days to process the paperwork.

    The stories I've seen which actively villify Blanco seem to be spearheaded by FOX news, one of the least subtle federal psyops assets. Blanco may have made bad calls, but she was a dupe.


    -FL