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."

75 of 334 comments (clear)

  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 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

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

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

    10. 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.

  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 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?
    3. 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!
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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 }.

      -->

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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?
    10. 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
  3. 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 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
    3. 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....
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
  4. Move along by AkA+lexC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing to see here

    --
    -AlexC
  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  6. 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 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
    3. 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/
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Government Secrecy by Scroatzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool.

      Please give me 33% of your income.

      I can't tell you why.

    7. 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
    8. 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?"

    9. 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

  7. 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 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.
    3. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by TheCaptain · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      I was being serious....

    4. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Re:Oldest trick in the book by Deagol · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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".

  14. 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
  15. 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 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

  16. 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.
  17. 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

  18. 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!
  19. 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?!

  20. 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-

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.