Slashdot Mirror


Project OXCART Declassified From Area 51

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the LA Times: "... the myths of Area 51 are hard to dispute if no one can speak on the record about what actually happened there. Well, now, for the first time, someone is ready to talk ... Colonel Hugh 'Slip' Slater, 87, was commander of the Area 51 base in the 1960s. Edward Lovick, 90, featured in 'What Plane?' in LA's March issue, spent three decades radar testing some of the world's most famous aircraft (including the U-2, the A-12 OXCART and the F-117). Kenneth Collins, 80, a CIA experimental test pilot, was given the silver star. Thornton 'T.D.' Barnes, 72, was an Area 51 special-projects engineer. And Harry Martin, 77, was one of the men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels."

208 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. How they could have kept this secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Write a book on gayness in area 51 and sell it on amazon.

    1. Re:How they could have kept this secret by Nasajin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pffffff... The gay bomb was declassified years ago.

    2. Re:How they could have kept this secret by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2

      Oh, gawds! I was hoping that article would be a stub with no references or citations, but alas, it's true!. Sadly, my government was really that stupid!

      ugh.

      I'm leaving now.

    3. Re:How they could have kept this secret by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that article would be a stub with no references or citations, but alas, it's true!

      Reminds me of the The Nude Bomb.

    4. Re:How they could have kept this secret by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      If you ask me the concept behind the gay bomb, sweating bomb, flatulence bomb, etc are to lower the enemy's morale, so they are not stupid by any means, funny but not stupid.

      Well I guess that the gay bomb might not have worked out considering that it could potentially booster the morale of the enemy troops and eagerly protect their loved ones.

    5. Re:How they could have kept this secret by rarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I guess that the gay bomb might not have worked out considering that it could potentially booster the morale of the enemy troops and eagerly protect their loved ones.

      Well, it worked in Sparta. And you didn't mess with the Spartans

    6. Re:How they could have kept this secret by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Pffffff... The gay bomb was declassified years ago.

      Pffffff... not nearly as scary as The Nude Bomb.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:How they could have kept this secret by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Oh, gawds! I was hoping that article would be a stub with no references or citations, but alas, it's true!. Sadly, my government was really that stupid!

      Well...that depends. Is homosexuality a choice or genetic? If it's genetic, we could possibly build a bomb that would mutate the genetic code or somehow trigger the process in non-gay people. Of course if it's genetic, then it would also be possible to screen for the genetic 'birth defect' and abort gay babies. (That kind of logic makes liberal heads explode).

      If it's a choice, well--nothing interesting to see here. People make stupid choices all the time. Move along.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  3. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They've been cleared to not talk about the aliens.

  4. The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Inominate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those unfamiliar, the A-12 is more commonly known as the SR-71. It's not exactly the same aircraft, the SR-71 being the later development, but anyone looking at an A-12 would immediately recognize it as an SR-71.

    1. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The A-12 was a successor to the U-2 and precursor to the SR-71. The A-12 project ended in '68. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

    2. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by jhesse · · Score: 5, Informative

      A-12: CIA-flown single-seater
      SR-71: Air Force-flown two-seater

      --

      --
      "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
    3. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      What? Every source out there lists the SR-71 as a single-seater plane, with a few two-seater planes existing for training purposes. The A-12 was the designation for the CIA version, while SR-71 was the official designation of the final plane. Not to mention that I highly doubt that the CIA actually flew those planes. The SR-71 might have been flying recon for the CIA, but I just don't know many test pilots in the CIA.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Loadmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/barrier/machines.html

      Relevant text:

      The two-seat SR-71 was developed in the early 1960s by the U.S. Air Force as a strategic reconnaissance aircraft.

    5. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by jhesse · · Score: 2, Informative

      I refer you to:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71#Specifications_.28SR-71A.29
      Where it says:
              Crew:2

      (not going to bother to look up the primary sources)

      --

      --
      "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
    6. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Nevermind - looks like I didn't read the sources close enough. I'm still wondering though how the CIA got its hands on pilots for those things. Yes, you can just hire Air Force pilots, but then - why not just let the Air Force do what it's supposed to do... fly planes?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by jhesse · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich discussed a lot of this.
      Basically, they hired AF pilots (on loan or retired). This stuff was all very top-secret and the CIA didn't want it to be widespread knowledge in the Air Force.

      They did this for the U-2 program too, which was a CIA initiated aircraft.

      --

      --
      "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
    8. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Inominate · · Score: 1

      Exactly why I qualified it as being "not exactly the same aircraft". The SR-71 is essentially a stretched variant.

    9. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      A-12: CIA-flown single-seater

      Actually, at least one variant of the A-12 had two seats... although I think it is the one they blew up testing the drone.

    10. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by cvos · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This video about the secret history of silicon valley explains some of the technology behind electronic warfare, radar imaging, and secret air force planes. The content relevant to this article appears around the 30min mark.

      E.T. believers will find nothing interesting, however military computer geeks will find it orgasmic.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

      --
      I'm just here for the sigs
    11. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by jshackney · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sled Driver is pilot-centric.

    12. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      It's easier to count the windows.

      I personally shot these photos. But hey, it could be disinformation. They wouldn't let me take it out for a test flight. We did notice that the engines were still in it, so it hasn't been completely sanitized as a museum piece, just put in air conditioned storage.

          I was considering how to taxi it out. They left too much stuff in the way, and I was short just about one ground crew to get it moving properly.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'd be fascinated to know what sources you think list the SR-71 as a single seat aircraft. Those sources are incorrect.

      How many test pilots do you know, exactly? I don't suppose it occured to you that the CIA could hire Air Force trained pilots (which is, in fact, what happened).

      Doubt whatever you like, the history is clear.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    14. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by ailnlv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny, I always thought U-2 was better without Bono

    15. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      No need to look it up. For anyone who knows RAF Mildenhall, the SR crews used to dorm in the building next to the 'Bird in Hand' pub, on the upper floor facing the base fence across the road. On the notice board outside the two rooms the 2 crew were assigned for their stay was a large cartoon. It showed the front of the plane with a couple of speech bubbles leading out of the cockpit, presumably from the pilot to his co.

      The speech bubbles read something like this (well, it was more than 10 years ago when I read it)...

      First bubble - "Here we are, on the edge of the atmosphere in space suits flying at more than twice the speed of sound for hours and hours. The cockpit is tiny, it's hot and uncomfortable. All the work we do and the air force - they treat us like shit."

      Second bubble - "Yeah. Fucking champagnes warm again." (This line is verbatim - at least I remember that bit right.)

      I think this proves that, unless the pilot was a complete nut job and talking to himself that there were two in the plane at any given time. They were great guys with a sense of humour to boot. What made it even more fun was one pilot in particular was well ofver 6-6, and the cockpit of the SR isn't the roomiest place on earth. Was probably him that penned the cartoon.

      So - anyone tells you they crewed one, you can tell 'em that. Hah! Who needs a Wiki?

    16. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by makisupa · · Score: 1

      That video was absolutely FANTASTIC. Thank-you so much for posting the link!!

      --
      "A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
    17. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This stuff was all very top-secret and the CIA didn't want it to be widespread knowledge in the Air Force.

      Obviously. They certainly didn't want the professionals to know that military aircraft were being sent around under amateur command by a bunch of uncontrolled spooks.

    18. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by billsnow · · Score: 1

      CIA did in fact fly those planes.
      For obvious reasons, only civilians (aka CIA) are allowed to fly spy planes.

    19. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by sjames · · Score: 1

      - why not just let the Air Force do what it's supposed to do... fly planes?

      Because the CIA is/was a paranoid operation and if the Air Force flew the missions, the CIA wouldn't have an exclusive on the intelligence gathered.

    20. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The CIA operated the A-12 because of the political ramifications about a military aircraft invading the airspace of the USSR, which was a hold over from the original U-2 operations - ironic when you consider that the A-12 or the SR-71 never conducted USSR overflights.

    21. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      "but I just don't know many test pilots in the CIA". Of course you don't they're the C I A!

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    22. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What a brilliantly crappy website:

      Photosynth does not support this OS

      Is the img tag just so last decade now?

    23. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      It's easier to count the windows

      I can't. That website requires Windows to count the windows.

      Who would create an OS-specific site for simple image viewing/manipulation? Oh... it's in Microsoft's netblock. Surprise.

    24. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by kimvette · · Score: 1

      There was also the YF-12A model (three of them IIRC) built as an interceptor (it was to carry munitions and be deployed as the F-12B), but which was allegedly used by NASA for "high-altitude atmospheric research."

      There is an article about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

      There is a funny story about the SR-71 in the book Sled Drivers: a light aircraft requested a speed check, then someone else showing off a faster general aviation craft decided to show off and request a check, then a fighter pilot who overheard then requested a check. The penis-waving contest was ended real quick because an SR-71 pilot happened to be an area and HE also requested a speed check. Do any of you here have that book on hand so you can post the exchange? :-)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    25. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nah, I had just shot those and tried to make a photosynth of them. It didn't act as advertised, but at least all the photos ended up online. I didn't have them anywhere else to link to, or else I would have linked directly to the cockpit photo, which shows two distinct cockpit windows.

          How about this...

          USAF Diagrams of the pilot and RSO seats

          Photo of the RSO seat (the rear seat)

          It's not to argue the point though. There were 13 1-seat A-12 and 32 2-seat SR71's built.

          And just to keep things interesting. Here's a M-21 with a D-21 drone

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    26. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by 0xFCE2 · · Score: 1

      Google to the rescue: http://www.fromtheinside.us/thinking/Groundspeed_Check.htm Don't know if it's authentic, but fun to read.

    27. Re:The A-12 is better known as the SR-71 by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard to compete with something that can outrun a .30-06 rifle bullet!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  5. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Trailwalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    The answer is in Area 42, but you must bring your own towel.

  6. It's all bollocks! by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any aliens sufficiently advanced to be able to travel to Earth from another planet, would be able to hide themselves......

    Nuff said

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:It's all bollocks! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is true - they are adept at disguising their ships as hub caps, lamp shades and dustbin lids. Advanced technology in their ships also causes all photographs to come out blurry.

    2. Re:It's all bollocks! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      You'd think so, but the Ferengi aren't too bright.

    3. Re:It's all bollocks! by Machtyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently, you don't know much about the ship full of salesman, accountants, military, and public phone cleaners.

    4. Re:It's all bollocks! by Forrest+Kyle · · Score: 1

      It could be that they have no desire to contact us, but also no desire to hide themselves. We may be simply too primitive to have what they consider a productive conversation, but they have no desire to hide themselves because they know that we don't have the technology or social structure to do anything about their occasional presence.

      Of course, I say all of this as an extreme skeptic of UFO stories. I'm just pointing out that there is another possible explanation besides "No Aliens" and "Aliens that can't sufficiently hide themselves".

    5. Re:It's all bollocks! by craagz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say, they'd be so advanced, they wouldn't bother landing on Earth.

      On the other hand, if they do land, they'd be busy attacking and not hiding.

    6. Re:It's all bollocks! by dmdavis · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to this site, the telephone sanitizers didn't clean telephones at all. I guess "telephone sanitizer" sounds better than "crapper cleaner."

    7. Re:It's all bollocks! by Daravon · · Score: 1
      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    8. Re:It's all bollocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the LA Times article, the saucer
      section is covered with wood strips leading
      to the Ford woody. The powerplant resembles
      a truck and it could top 50 mph.

    9. Re:It's all bollocks! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Advanced technology in their ships also causes all photographs to come out blurry.

      Clearly it's a technology also available to Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  7. Spy Plane Fuel. . . the horrible truth by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Funny

    " . . . half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels."

    That's no mean trick. They condensed the stuff from the souls of mutilated cattle. The bovine victims stark terror at being lifted up into a saucer (in reality an airship coated with radium paint and filled with below-zero-ground state Helium) crewed by airmen dressed as alien "Greys" increased the fuel's specific impulse by nearly 30%.

    1. Re:Spy Plane Fuel. . . the horrible truth by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      increased the fuel's specific impulse by nearly 30%

      That would make that fuel-development program much more successful than the borane fuel the Air Force was looking at the B-70 program.

      BTW your joke didn't "Whoosh" because it was going supersonic. More like "BOoooooommmm!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  8. OXCART by bcmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always found the name "OXCART" creepy, because of the famous von Neumann quote "I am not sure that the miserable thing can work, nor that it can be gotten to the target except by oxcart", referring to the weight of the atom bomb.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:OXCART by bcmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oppenheimer quote, rather. Got confused as it was reprinted in a book about von Neumann.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:OXCART by EdZ · · Score: 1

      That may not be entirely coincidental. I once read (in a book, hence no hyperlink) that an A-12 variant was designed, and 3 test aircraft modified, for use as a high-altitude interceptor. This was later scrapped in favour of increasingly effective SAMs, but if the program was continued an FB could potentially have followed the F.

    3. Re:OXCART by LenE · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are referring to the YF-12A, which did fly and successfully launch an air-to-air guided missle, while flying at mach 3.2 at 74,000 feet, hitting a target drone flying at 500 feet altitude. Amazing, given the state of electronics and guidance technology at the time. Hell, all of the technology for the A-12 / YF-12 / SR-71 is still amazing today.

      Anyway, the YF-12 was acknowledged and publicized so it could be used as a cover for the similar A-12 and follow-on RS-71 planes. It wasn't much of a stretch to think that we had ever-faster interceptors, but a stratospheric, Mach 3+ spy plane? That was science fiction. The RS-71 was re-named the SR-71 after Lyndon Johnson flubbed the name on live television. They changed all drawings and documents for the program, an amazingly expensive waste of tax-payers dollars, just so that no one would have to correct the Commander in Chief.

      -- Len

    4. Re:OXCART by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      The RS-71 was re-named the SR-71 after Lyndon Johnson flubbed the name on live television. They changed all drawings and documents for the program, an amazingly expensive waste of tax-payers dollars, just so that no one would have to correct the Commander in Chief.

      No.

      "Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) designation and wanted the RS-71 to be named SR-71. Before the July speech, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the aircraft's designation."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird

      Furthermore, all the materials at the time were labeled "R-12" and would have been re-printed regardless.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    5. Re:OXCART by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The YF-12A was scrapped because of the lack of a requirement for a Mach 3 interceptor - neither sides Mach 3 bombers made it to production, so the need to intercept them evaporated.

    6. Re:OXCART by Z303 · · Score: 1

      The radar and missiles were (and still are) impressive, after the F-12 programme ended the radar and missile ended forming the basis of the F-14 (via the F-111B) AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missile, so all that developed effort did not go to waste.

    7. Re:OXCART by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bought the hype! Quoting from wiki:

      Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) designation and wanted the RS-71 to be named SR-71. Before the July speech, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the aircraft's designation

    8. Re:OXCART by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Part of the the radar and missile heritage probably does run from F-12 to F-14, if I can believe this article; the other part of the combat avionics suite was from the F6D Missileer/AAM-N-10 Eagle programs. This latter is usually counted as the Phoenix's official lineage.

      But the F-14 airframe was pretty much "bastard love child of the F111B."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:OXCART by Z303 · · Score: 1

      Not doubting any of that. Other articles I've read do point out the Phoenix as the end of the Falcon development, not that a project only had to have a single predecessor but I do find it interesting that the airframe of the Phoenix looks more like the Falcon's than the Eagle's which maybe more to do with it being a Hughes project.

    10. Re:OXCART by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I think you're right, from a technical perspective; the Phoenix's engineering seems to have more to do with the Falcon than the Eagle. But like many things, history is written by managers; the heritage I've seen cited most often is the program heritage, which is in the U. S. Navy acquisition trace: Eagle -> Phoenix.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    11. Re:OXCART by Z303 · · Score: 1

      Also having another look at the Eagle, removing the booster, gives you more less the same design as the falcon anyway nd wherever it came from it an impressive piece of engineering

    12. Re:OXCART by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      It might have also been because SR sounds cooler that RS, and that SR works with "Strategic Reconnaissance" while "Reconnaissance Strategic" seems awkward, French.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    13. Re:OXCART by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Cooler THAN. THAN, with an N.

      Stupid fingers.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  9. Re:I know too much by GreenTech11 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Notice how there were no pictures in the article? They have been possesed by aliens and now they are going to spread the alien around the world! I'm off to Alaska, cause aliens are cold blooded

    --
    Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
  10. Area 51 or area 51A? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Yes but that's area 51. Area 51A might have aliens. Unfortunately, the location of area 51A is also classified.

    1. Re:Area 51 or area 51A? by mikerubin · · Score: 0

      Area 51A is in eastern Canada

      --
      I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
    2. Re:Area 51 or area 51A? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

          I have been cleared to state, there may or may not be an Area 51A. I cannot confirm nor deny the designation, purpose, or location, should such a location exist.

          I hope that clarifies things for you.

          Our next statement on the issue will come in 50 years.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Area 51 or area 51A? by stile99 · · Score: 1

      Yes but that's area 51. Area 51A might have aliens. Unfortunately, the location of area 51A is also classified.

      No it isn't, it is in Springfield. But considering the location of Springfield itself is classified...

  11. I believe it by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you were a government agency in charge of secret weapons testing, what better cover could you possibly come up with than implausibility? It may not have fooled the Soviets, but it sure fooled the American public. Nowadays Area 51 is usually mentioned in the same breath as JFK and Elvis' retirement community.

    It would be interesting to check the Soviet archives and see what they thought was going on in Area 51.

    1. Re:I believe it by machineghost · · Score: 1

      You say that like the JFK "conspiracy" is in the same category as the "Elvis is still alive" conspiracy. There is a TON of hard evidence that the official JFK story is false, not the least of which is that the national forensics association said (just last year, using modern techniques) that the official story was impossible. As such, it really does not belong in the category as alien sightings.

      Elvis on the other hand ...

    2. Re:I believe it by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      The National Forensic Association is an intercollegiate debating organization. I doubt they have anything particularly important to say about the JFK assassination. There was a report by the National Academy of Sciences based on acoustical analysis of crime scene recordings, but it concluded that the multiple-shooter theory was not supported by the available acoustic evidence.

      Perhaps you are thinking of a report by a Texas A&M professor of statistics and a retired FBI forensic scientist from 2007 who "conducted a chemical and forensic analysis of bullets reportedly derived from the same batch as those used by suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald." Their conclusion was that the bullet fragments aren't particularly rare and that the matching fragments could have come from three or more separate bullets, and that previous analysis based on bullet fragments "used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed."

      The important thing to note here, conspiracy buffs, is that those two reports don't contradict one another. There could be a second shooter that wasn't captured by the acoustic evidence -- but likewise, matching fragments could have come from three or more separate bullets is not an equivalent statement to "matching fragments did come from three or more separate bullets."

      It's also worth noting that, in fact, the report was not done by a "national association," it never made the sweeping claim that "the official story was impossible," and the report has been criticized for naive use of statistics and generally poor writing. According to critic John Fiorentino, the paper as finally presented in 2008 was revised to address his rebuttal linked above, and "by making the revisions, the authors have effectively negated their findings just as stated in [Fiorentino's] rebuttal."

      There are many criticisms to be made of the Warren Commission's handling of the investigation, and I suspect that because of that there will be people arguing about this two hundred years from now. The problem is the same here as with nearly all Grand Government Conspiracy Stories, though: even if the official story (about whatever event we're talking about) is incomplete and imperfect, that doesn't ipso facto make the official story wrong in either overall scope or final conclusion. It's worthy to question authority and to be skeptical of any official story--but there is a point where skepticism becomes gullibility: someone who automatically dismisses anything The Government says is thinking no more critically than someone who automatically accepts anything The Government says, and is ultimately just as easy to manipulate.

    3. Re:I believe it by machineghost · · Score: 1

      Dude, you owned me with your research skills :-) And I really goofed on the NFL; the irony is that I'm actually a card-carrying member of the NFL (from my high school debate days), so I should have known better. Still, you evidently got the idea of what I was talking about.

      In any case, my point wasn't to say that there's proof of a cover-up with JFK, just that there was far more evidence suggesting it. With UFOs/bigfoot/Elvis/etc. conspiracies, you have rubber suits and very crappy video footage. With JFK, you've got:
      * an assasin who was clearly a CIA agent (you don't train at a CIA base, defect to Russia, then defect back if you're not)
      * he's caught at a location he couldn't possibly have gotten to if he was had shot JFK from the place he supposedly shot him from (I forget the name, but some TV show actually had an olympic sprinter try, and fail, to make that run)
      * JFK's brain going missing
      * forensics that call in to question the official story (and I really thought they had shown a single shooter was very unlikely, but I can't find that report)
      and a bunch more things that I'm too lazy to enumerate as well.

      Maybe it really was one crazy former CIA agent who shot JFK. I certainly don't know. But given all *facts* in the story, there's really a world of difference between the chances of an actual JFK conspiracy and the chances of UFOs/bigfoot/whatever.

    4. Re:I believe it by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      But given all *facts* in the story, there's really a world of difference between the chances of an actual JFK conspiracy and the chances of UFOs/bigfoot/whatever.

      (A somewhat delayed response due to putting off my taxes until the last minute yesterday...) True enough. I think the real fallout of the Warren Commission's report is that it doesn't matter whether they were deliberately trying to cover something up or just did a rush job to get a sense of "closure" as quickly as possible; they made it all but impossible for anyone to definitively say "this is what happened, case closed," so people may well be puzzling over bullet fragments several generations from now.

  12. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > I WANT TO BELIEVE

    You do realize Mulder's original poster look suspiciously based off a photo...
    http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Image:Figu_picture.jpg

    --
    "To say that people's consciousness can be represented as alien, and that people are afraid to face that facet of themselves, isn't too far off the mark."

  13. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real conspiracy theory is that that is where the USA tests it's illegal weapons. After all, the U-2 was developed there to be used for illegal overflights, and it's existence was only discovered because the Soviets shot one down (and only then after denials coming right from the top). Seen that way, it starts to look reasonably likely that much worse things have been developed there.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  14. Harry Martin Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think there was a typo in the article, it reads:

    "And Harry Martin, 77, was one of the men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels."

    I think it is suppose to read:

    And harry MARTIAN #77 was one of the little green men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of flying saucer fuel."

    1. Re:Harry Martin Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean HAIRY MARTIAN #77 right?

  15. Oh bloody hell by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who cares about Area 51? Everyone knows the Stargates are in Cheyenne Mountain and antarctica.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    1. Re:Oh bloody hell by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

      There was one in Russia, but they blew theirs up.

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    2. Re:Oh bloody hell by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      no, they are in Cheyenne Mountain, a cloaked city sized space ship located just outside the San Francisco Bay, and who knows where else. (maybe on the moon or Mars)

    3. Re:Oh bloody hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about Area 51? Everyone knows the Stargates are in Cheyenne Mountain and antarctica.

      such a noob, everyone knows one of the stargates was destoryed.

    4. Re:Oh bloody hell by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      There was one in Russia, but they blew theirs up.

      The Russian gate was the one originally used by the SGC then beamed up to the Asgard ship infested with replicators. The gate survived dropping into the ocean and was fished out by the Russians for their project.

      The Antarctic gate was used by the SGC to replace the one "lost" on the Asgard ship. It was the one that was taken out into space and to explode. The SGC then rented their original gate back.

      What happened to the Gate (or Gates) on the two ships that Apophis brought to Earth and subsequently destroyed by SG-1 and Master Bratac was never explained.

    5. Re:Oh bloody hell by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      There was one in Russia, but they blew theirs up.

      actually, we has ours blown up by Anubis and had to buy the Russian one. The DHD that they had was blown up.

    6. Re:Oh bloody hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pff... we didnt buy the Russian one... it was leased!

    7. Re:Oh bloody hell by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you Sheldon. Now stop hogging the wi-fi.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    8. Re:Oh bloody hell by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      such a noob, everyone knows one of the stargates was destoryed.

      Yeah, as if Stargate Command was dumb enough to give back all the Stargates that Ba'al was collecting and not keep a few spares!

      p.s. Was that a type-o or actually meant to be de-story-ed.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    9. Re:Oh bloody hell by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      no, they are in Cheyenne Mountain, a cloaked city sized space ship located just outside the San Francisco Bay, and who knows where else. (maybe on the moon or Mars)

      Hangar 18, Wright AFB.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    10. Re:Oh bloody hell by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      The SGC then rented their original gate back.

      They later bought it from Russia with a 304. Very lucrative fishing expedition for the Russians, if you ask me.

    11. Re:Oh bloody hell by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      The NID is at Area 51. All the cool toys SG1 brings back go there.

    12. Re:Oh bloody hell by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I only have up to Season 7. Did they ever find multiple working gates in a single star system (home star straddles address boundary)?

    13. Re:Oh bloody hell by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      none that they showed us. There probably are seeing as how there are 7,958,661,109,946,400,884,391,936 (6^32) possible addresses per galaxy and over half are invalid (probably only .000000001% or less are valid)

    14. Re:Oh bloody hell by tgd · · Score: 1

      Oh jeez, I'm about to nerd myself here... but no, the American one was the Russian one on loan to the US...

    15. Re:Oh bloody hell by tgd · · Score: 1

      No, not the NID -- that was just another branch of the Airforce, but the NID had their fingers in it from time to time.

      Remember, Carter worked at Area 51 for a while.

    16. Re:Oh bloody hell by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Because Area 51 is the location for Project Backstep. I sometimes wonder what would happen if SG-1 ran into Frank B. Parker.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  16. Regardless by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Regardless of what comes out it won't really change anything. The Area 51 mythos is to ingrained for conspiracy buffs to give it up. After all if Area 51 was just a secret government facility for planes, then what about everything else that was a cover up/conspiracy.

    1. Re:Regardless by christurkel · · Score: 1

      I am willing to believe there was more going on there than just planes, but I don't think it was aliens or alien spacecraft. Probably some weapons testing, stealth blimps, etc.

      --

      CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
  17. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the Kremlin had learned what our prototypes looked like at that point, the russian economy probably would have been much stronger, they never would have embarked on those economic reforms that backfired, and they eventually would have won the cold war.

    I'll say. We were fucking working on OX CARTS.

  18. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

    Also area 63, but you have to rememeber DONT PANIC

    --
    Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
  19. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh yeah, and also it was very important that they keep the events there secret up until now. Some might ask why the hell you would need to keep it secret almost 50 years later, about a decade after the plane itself (not the prototype, the actual plane) was mothballed. But those people who would ask that are unamerican commie bastards.

  20. I want to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I don't. The moon rules #1!

    Truly,

    Stanton Friedman

    1. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, beware of the Aliens in AREA 69; they taste funny.

    2. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Mozk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that the Area 42 over in Base 13?

      --
      No existe.
    3. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by siddesu · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the attitude the evil social engineering masterminds behind these stories are shooting for.

      The truth is out there, except you blind fools cannot see it, because of the wool the mass media and the government pull over your eyes.

      Ah well ... it is hopeless.

    4. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about area 34? That's where the government keeps its huge stash of porn mags...

    5. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that the Area 42 over in Base 13?

      I think it's in base 10 (decimal), actually.

    6. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The truth is out there

      I'd find it but I trust no one.

    7. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Either you get a whoosh, or I do.

    8. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by siddesu · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit! You made only one mistake ... posting here. Now they are after you.

    9. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by bakes · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about area 34? That's where the government keeps its huge stash of porn mags...

      No, that's Area 69.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    10. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by craagz · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there's nothing about aliens in there. So it looks like a good old fashion book burning is in order! Unfortunately, it's a website.

      New Fashion Slashdotting, maybe?

    11. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that's Area 69.

      Actually that's two areas.

    12. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Timmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Woosh.

      The joke is that 6*9=42 in base 13.

    13. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by jfmonte · · Score: 1

      where are all the "your base" jokes? am i missing something?

    14. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by bmorency · · Score: 1

      So it looks like a good old fashion book burning is in order! Unfortunately, it's a website.

      How about a good old fashioned slashdoting to take down the sever that the article is on? The server might go up in flames.

    15. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by bcmm · · Score: 3, Funny

      where are all the "your base" jokes? am i missing something?

      That is an old, obsolete meme; we've moved on and support for the meme was officially withdrawn last week. According to current plans, you still have a couple of years to use "Hot Grits", however, before that one is EOLed.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    16. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by a11acce55 · · Score: 1

      Welp. They have the basic goal To Serve Man. What do you expect? Lighten up; so they goofed the first couple of tries. Maybe they should stop trying to make sense of our Ronco commercials and try frying themselves instead of these insipid stir-fry thingies they've been masquerading as so far.

      --
      { { while true ; { yes "Finally a great use for a Windows hard drive!" } ; done ; } >/dev/hda 2>&1
    17. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All our exobiology stimulus packages are belong to us. Hey, my bad, so I goofed the last time. Wanna make it up to you guys. -Barack Obama, formerly Xenu, head of the Galactic Confederacy.

    18. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your base are belong to us...

    19. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Area 34 is where the government has multi-petabyte archives of all the internet porn.

    20. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      I want to believe that meme is dead, I really do. But I thought I killed it in bolivia back in 04, and again I thought it was dead when it went missing in the alps in January of 08.

      somehow, I can't believe it really died this time.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    21. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      Dunno, but all your base are belong to us

      --
      -- dnl
    22. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      where are all the "your base" jokes? am i missing something?

      Cowboy Neal ate it

      --
      -- dnl
    23. Re:I WANT TO BELIEVE by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Modded "Troll" because you think the US doesn't build illegal weapons, or because you think the U2 flights deep into USSR airspace were legal?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  21. Interesting. by jd · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem is that only this one program is being declassified. There's no indication that this is the only project that would meet the 50-year rule. That is going to provide added fuel to the conspiracy nuts, because there is now confirmation about the infrastructure. It's not enough to say "project X took place" when it is near-certain there'd be dozens of projects being worked on in tandem.

    Of course, TFA makes it clear that the problems are largely of the Government's own making. Denying a site exists when it's obvious it does simply draws attention to it - they very thing they SHOULD have been avoiding. Describing it in horribly boring terms would have been much more effective.

    If you want to hide something that is in plain sight, the LAST thing you want to do is be seen trying to keep it out of sight. Call it a launch-pad for target balloons for night-fighter practice, if you like.

    Of course, it's good that things are starting to be declassified. An incomplete history is a boring history and a deceptive history. However, like I said, there will have been parallel projects to this, some of which may have been canceled/completed many years earlier than OXCART. (OXCART started 8 years in. Don't tell me there wasn't a single failed and abandoned project in those first eight years.)

    These other projects should be being released alongside this, especially if abandoned in the first eight years. They're no longer of significance to anyone but a historian, and if you think OXCART has few survivors, anything that never progressed as far will have had far fewer members to begin with and may well have no survivors left at all.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Interesting. by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Of course, TFA makes it clear that the problems are largely of the Government's own making. Denying a site exists when it's obvious it does simply draws attention to it - they very thing they SHOULD have been avoiding. Describing it in horribly boring terms would have been much more effective.

      If you want to hide something that is in plain sight, the LAST thing you want to do is be seen trying to keep it out of sight. Call it a launch-pad for target balloons for night-fighter practice, if you like.

      [puts on tinfoil hat]

      Seems to me that making a big show of trying to hide something in plain sight would also do a very good job of drawing attention away from the things that you really want to hide.

      It's a distraction, in other words...

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    2. Re:Interesting. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If you want to hide something that is in plain sight, the LAST thing you want to do is be seen trying to keep it out of sight. Call it a launch-pad for target balloons for night-fighter practice, if you like.

      If you want to hide something in plain sight, the first thing you want is an interesting distraction. Area 51 would have served nicely for that, since everyone was convinced the government was covering something up there....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Interesting. by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah...because the horrible failures of things like the gay bomb and acoustic kitty really need to be well known. I am sure all sides have similar tales of absolute stupidity. The whole spy game stuff sounds really interesting because the only stories we hear are the ones of "success". All of the monumentally stupid embarrassing stuff tends to get hidden quite a bit better. The gay bomb and acoustic kitty should have everyone embarrassed to be human, let alone any specific nationality. Evil government scheming aside, the fact that a group of otherwise reasonably intelligent people that have developed some amazing things and pulled of impossible ideas over the years got together and allowed those kinds of ideas to become anything more than a hilarious brainstorming joke.

      I am perfectly OK with many of those failed projects never being released just so we can remove them from process of figuring up the average worth of human intelligence. I would really like to maintain the fantasy that humans actually do have better ideas than dog on the porch that spends the day licking his balls in public.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  22. OLD news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is OLD news. Search for the "OXCART story" and you'll find a pretty comprehensive history from an internal CIA historical publication. The author's pen name was "Thomas McInninch" or something very similar. This info has been on the web since at least 1996.

  23. The BEST stuff happened later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best stuff happened at the ranch a little bit later than those guys are talking about. And they were never privy to the real black ops there. It's a need to know, you know.

  24. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by icebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...or (more likely) it was just stamped with a standard 50-year classification, and nobody wanted to be bothered to declassify it earlier. See, they don't know how long in advance things will have to remain classified, so they pick an arbitrary number far enough ahead that it won't release while it could still put our people and operations in jeopardy.

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  25. Significance by dangle · · Score: 1

    TFA describes the attempts to create an oral history of the project from the surviving participants, since many are getting old.

  26. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Geez, you just felt like ranting, right?

    Do you seriously question the need to conceal the nation's highest technology from other governments?

    Lying to the public is obvious. You need to lie to the public because the public aren't the only people listening. The intelligence agencies know that anything said to the public in general is also being said to foreign agencies. It doesn't work to print a story in the local paper describing what's going on with a byline to make sure no one tells the Russians.

    Drugging the pilot also serves an end: they gave him sodium pentathol to ensure that he was telling them all he knew, and didn't leave anything out, consciously or otherwise. This has as much of a use to reveal something the person didn't even realize they were concealing (mental block) than it does at trying to catch someone in a conscious lie.

    Forcing civilians to sign a NDA: that should be self-evident. We're dealing with the most secret technology at the time, obviously the government is going to use legal tools to help ensure that it stays secret as long as possible.

    The SR-71 was still in official operation late into the 1990s, the official service record is from 1964 to 1998. This year, about 10 years after it was retired, is about the right time I would expect the government to start talking about that plane. A government will only discuss its technology in public when that technology is no longer the best or would not be a threat if another government had it. I think it's fair to assume at this point that if another air force came at us with an SR-71, that we would be able to shoot it down.

  27. 51 is silly by justgosh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Area 51 is a pile of hangers and a run way that house next gen planes... the reason it's secret is because even the shape and size of an aircraft can give away it's purpose.. in the mean time other governments can build counter measures against it even before the plane goes into production... Do you know what's next to Area 51? Area 52... it's a square on a map, nothing more.

  28. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obvious troll is obvious

  29. business as usual for conspiracy theorists by garutnivore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we have guys who were actually working at Area 51 and say there were no ETs or ET technology there.

    Will this debunk any conspiracy theory?

    No.

    The axioms upon which the conspiracy theories are established will be protected. The theorists will interpret reality so as to protect their cherished axioms. The theorists will just say that these men are part of the cover up and that their declaration is in fact proof of ETs at Area 51.

    1. Re:business as usual for conspiracy theorists by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not meant to debunk any crazy theories. Despite the self-importance that conspiracy theorists like to ascribe to themselves, the government really doesn't give a damn what they think.

      The reason this information is being released is because it's classified status has finally expired, and a few of the people who worked on these projects are happy to finally be able to tell others about them. That's it, that's all. Put yourself in their shoes. If you were part of the development team for the SR-71, you'd feel some justifiable pride in being part of the project, and would want to share the information with others. It's human nature, not some complex CIA plot to get rid of conspiracy theorists.

    2. Re:business as usual for conspiracy theorists by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. Elvis told me a year ago that this story would be released to debunk the conspiracy theories.

      I remember the conversation clearly. We were flying in a black helicopter on our way to the grassy knoll in Dallas (he likes to walk around there every November). He said the aliens really liked the idea of tying the UFO sightings to a spy plane being tested.

      After all, we all know that the complete lack of evidence of a conspiracy is the best evidence that the conspiracy is still working.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    3. Re:business as usual for conspiracy theorists by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Will this debunk any conspiracy theory?

      No.

      UFO's are a useful intelligence construct to hide the existence of spy planes.

      Why are you laughing?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:business as usual for conspiracy theorists by rts008 · · Score: 1

      If you were part of the development team for the SR-71, you'd feel some justifiable pride in being part of the project, and would want to share the information with others.

      Hell yes! SR-71 still fascinates me. A truly awesome bit of engineering in it's day.

      ...not some complex CIA plot to get rid of conspiracy theorists.

      In late 1980, I can assure you that those in charge there were overjoyed by the conspiracy nuts. They did not want rid of them, and were rumored to have 'fanned the flames' on occasion.

      From my [limited]understanding at the time, i can say that the Soviets knew we were flying aircraft, some of which were probably supersonic, in and out of Groom Lake. The signs are pretty noticeable from satellite recon. But they did not know what, how many, and exactly when. (they could get a 'window', but not really pinpoint) was flying in or out.
      Security is taken very seriously there, and the scheduled 'overhead times' of all the different surveillance sat's of all countries were well known.

      I can also safely say more than one or two projects are going on at a time.

      Oh, flying saucers aand space aliens? No, but as I said, they are happy about that.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  30. Anyone else dissapointed? by downix · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else dissapointed? Not that there were no aliens, or super-secret spyplanes, but that the mystery is lost? Area 51 was the fuel for imagination, the "what if" moments that it gave rise to. I, for one, shall miss the curiosity and sence of wonder when looking at the photographs and just imagining....

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Anyone else dissapointed? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Area 51 was the fuel for imagination, the "what if" moments that it gave rise to

      It stopped being fuel for my imagination right about the time I turned 14, and realized that most of the theories were complete garbage.

      If you want to fuel your imagination, buy yourself a telescope and gaze into the heavens. The universe can inspire more awe and wonder than any crazy theory made up about a nondescript patch of desert in the middle of the US.

    2. Re:Anyone else dissapointed? by dido · · Score: 1

      Not that there were no aliens, or super-secret spyplanes,

      Wel, indeed there were no aliens, but the place was apparently full of super-secret spy planes, among other cutting-edge military and espionage aircraft. All the R&D that went into the U-2 and the A-12 OXCART (which eventually became the SR-71 Blackbird as others here have noted), was done at Area 51, as was that for the F-117. That seems to have been the whole raison d'être for the facility's existence, and for the obsessive (and rather pointless) secrecy surrounding it. If they really wanted to keep the goings-on there secret from everyone, they would have done better to paint the place as boring as possible, to deflect interest from the public, and from foreign governments as well.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    3. Re:Anyone else dissapointed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is anyone else dissapointed? Not that there were no aliens, or super-secret spyplanes, but that the mystery is lost? Area 51 was the fuel for imagination, the "what if" moments that it gave rise to. I, for one, shall miss the curiosity and sence of wonder when looking at the photographs and just imagining....

      We're reading about things that were built 50 years ago.

      If you want the sense of wonder back, ponder what they're doing now.

      And keep your ears open for sonic booms tracking over California in the general direction of Nevada over the past few years.

    4. Re:Anyone else dissapointed? by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else dissapointed?

      I know I am. I mean almost 46 years and this was the best they could do for a new cover story? They should just stick with the swamp gas and weather balloon stories.

    5. Re:Anyone else dissapointed? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Really? New research is making it apparent that you may not need to make a sonic boom when going supersonic. Any bets the government has this more advanced than some random academic research?

  31. I just find it amazing by wh1pp3t · · Score: 1

    The SR-71/A-12 project is simply amazing. This was the time of true innovation; these guys worked with titanium for the first time ever, designed a plane that goes over MACH-3 (much faster I believe) with tools like slide rule and a drafting board.

    On the matter of speed:
    If the top-speed of the F-15 of about 2.5 MACH. MACH 3 aint that much faster (relitively speaking) and you don't hear about special fuels and pilots waiting for the jet to cool off after a flight so they can get out. MACH 5 sounds about right...

    Satellites in a predictable orbit are much easier to shoot down than the Blackbird (it was done last by an F-15 in 1985). For that reason alone, I am sure the SR-71's that are 'mothballed' are far from retired.

    1. Re:I just find it amazing by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Satellites in a predictable orbit are much easier to shoot down than the Blackbird (it was done last by an F-15 in 1985). For that reason alone, I am sure the SR-71's that are 'mothballed' are far from retired.

      The real problem with satellites is that the predictable orbit allows the enemy to hide his shit when they're overhead.

      And I think it more likely that the SR-71 is retired, and that there is "something else" available. The fact that all the airframes are accounted for and only the few NASA airframes are airworthy pretty much makes it unlikely they're still being used. If you look at the history of the multiple retirements of the SR-71 at the AIr Force's request, it becomes fairly obvious that there is something else. All the noise about how "we have no replacement" seems to come from congressmen, who despite their hamfisted attempt to insert themselves into the "classified" military budget process, are really a bunch of dumbass rubes who would spill the beans, so it's unsurprising the DoD has done what they could to keep them out of the loop.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:I just find it amazing by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The highest mach number ever attained by any of the family was Mach 3.56.

              Brett

    3. Re:I just find it amazing by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

      On the matter of speed:
      If the top-speed of the F-15 of about 2.5 MACH. MACH 3 aint that much faster (relitively speaking) and you don't hear about special fuels and pilots waiting for the jet to cool off after a flight so they can get out. MACH 5 sounds about right...
       

      From Wikipedia:

      For high velocities, (snip) Assuming a more-or-less constant drag coefficient, drag will vary as the square of velocity. Thus, the resultant power needed to overcome this drag will vary as the cube of velocity.

      So, no, not *that* much faster, but depending on the materials involved it might be the difference between "works fine" and "failed due to heat stress".

      I'm sure someone with a background in fluid dynamics could explain it better then me. Anyone out there?

    4. Re:I just find it amazing by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      You're comparing the top speed of one airplane with the nominal cruising speed of another. Those are two very different beasts. If I were prone to car analogies, I'd say something along the lines of "this is like comparing the escape velocity of a Ford Pinto, tossed from a trebuchet suspended from a zeppelin in low earth orbit, to the crusing speed of the space shuttle."

      The max speed of the SR-71 was governed mostly by the maximum temperature of the air inlets, which was 800 degrees C (or 427 F which is the reason the limited edition of the book Sled Driver cost 427 USD and yes, I own one). The Wikipedia article on The Article suggests that using other materials in the inlets would allow a top speed in the Mach 6 range...

      The Book: https://galleryonepublishing.com/BlackbirdStores/

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    5. Re:I just find it amazing by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      I am sure the SR-71's that are 'mothballed' are far from retired.

      You can go have a look: http://gmaps.tommangan.us/blackbirds.html

      I still kick myself because I used to work just a few miles from the one in Chantilly, never knowing it was there. :-(

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    6. Re:I just find it amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you sound so "IN" and authoritative, the problem is that I used to fuck guys like you in prison.

    7. Re:I just find it amazing by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is "something else" available.

      Yes, there is. A high/low mix of Predator and Global Hawk UAVs provide real-time intelligence with a loiter time. Rather than blowing by a target at Mach 3, UAV surveillance gives the ability to observe a target for a long period of time. I suspect if there's a secret reconnaissance aircraft in the U.S. inventory it's a stealth UAV, something like the DarkStar concept only my guess is it's scaled up to have endurance similar to Global Hawk.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    8. Re:I just find it amazing by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "On the matter of speed:
      If the top-speed of the F-15 of about 2.5 MACH. MACH 3 aint that much faster (relitively speaking) and you don't hear about special fuels and pilots waiting for the jet to cool off after a flight so they can get out."

      Look at the size difference between an F-15 and an SR-71. The parasitic drag of an SR-71 is significantly higher, and the associated friction caused immense heating. An F-15 also does not have the service ceiling of an SR-71. Regular jet fuel will not suffice at altitudes and speeds the SR-71 is designed to operate in.

      "I am sure the SR-71's that are 'mothballed' are far from retired."

      Um, you can go see them. All but a few are on public display. I believe the DoD has kept one, and NASA has at least one.

    9. Re:I just find it amazing by Rozzin · · Score: 1

      The real problem with satellites is that the predictable orbit allows the enemy to hide his shit when they're overhead.

      Only if he can get it out, use it, and then put it away again all within the time that it takes a satellite to complete an orbit, which takes a lot less time than you think it does (hint: look for the word "minutes").

      --
      -rozzin.
    10. Re:I just find it amazing by camperdave · · Score: 1

      "this is like comparing the escape velocity of a Ford Pinto, tossed from a trebuchet suspended from a zeppelin in low earth orbit, to the crusing speed of the space shuttle."

      Those two speeds would actually be relatively close. The Shuttle typically orbits the Earth at about 28,000 km/h, and escape velocity is 40,320 km/h, about 1.4 times faster.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:I just find it amazing by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      That was sort of my point as the example of the F-15 top speed and SR-71 crusing speed also are reasonably close, as numbers go. I was shooting for a mental image of the effort required to attain and sustain those speeds, but apparently, I missed. :-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    12. Re:I just find it amazing by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I was shooting for a mental image of the effort required to attain and sustain those speeds, but apparently, I missed. :-)

      Well, you missed me anyways. I'm sure there are some sharper forks in the drawer who managed to get your point.

      BTW, after re-reading your post to catch this "effort required to attain" concept, I thought "Wait a minute. Trebuchets won't work in orbit. They're gravity powered.". Then I started wondering if you knew this and it was part of the "effort".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:I just find it amazing by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Come to think of it, you probably couldn't put a zeppelin in LEO either. :-D

      I guess you could moderate my post "Fail" all around.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    14. Re:I just find it amazing by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Still, it makes a stunning visual.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  32. I'm quite sure they knew the gist of it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, it wasn't any secret among the American public (the non consparicy nuts that is) for some time that it is a flight test facility. The Soviets likely had an easy time telling that from satellite shots. So they likely had no trouble figuring out this was a testbed for US planes. By the secrecy surrounding it, they probably had no trouble figuring out it was for secret planes.

    As for the specifics, I imagine not unless they got a spy in there. All the projects that have so far been declassified in terms of secret craft, like the U2, were quite effective at being secret from the public during their development.

    I imagine if one were allowed complete access to the classified American records of the facility you'd discover that yes, it is just an aircraft testing facility that has worked with lots of neat planes.

  33. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our rights were given to us by ourselves, not by God. We, not God, died to ensure those rights, here in the world. God died so that we would be allowed entrance to the magical cloud city in the sky. Even if we weren't from Texas. Hope that clears things up.

  34. Conspiracy Theorists' Wet Dream..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is it that conspiracy theorists love to believe that:

    1. All unidentifiable flying objects are of extraterrestrial origin?

    2. Highly-Secure (as opposed to 'secret') military installations have alien bodies and extraterrestrial spacecraft?

    3. Mysterious animals in the Pacific Northwest are all Sasquatches.

    4. Unexplained technologies are of extraterrestrial origin.

    It's amazing how people sometimes refuse to acknowledge that there is an EXTREMELY SLIM CHANCE that any of these have actually occurred, yet continue to claim that they happen all the time.

    Just because something cannot be explained in now way validates the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theorists' Wet Dream..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that conspiracy theorists love to believe that:

      1. All unidentifiable flying objects are of extraterrestrial origin?

      Because they are.

      2. Highly-Secure (as opposed to 'secret') military installations have alien bodies and extraterrestrial spacecraft?

      Because they do.

      3. Mysterious animals in the Pacific Northwest are all Sasquatches.

      What else could they be besides large man-apes that have eluded us for decades?

      4. Unexplained technologies are of extraterrestrial origin.

      If it's sufficiently strange and the Japanese didn't make it, it must have come from another planet.

      It's amazing how people sometimes refuse to acknowledge that there is an EXTREMELY SLIM CHANCE that any of these have actually occurred, yet continue to claim that they happen all the time.

      Just because something cannot be explained in no way validates the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

      That's just crazy talk.

  35. Because if two people know, it's not a secret by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basically what it gets down to is the more people who are in on something, the more likely information leaks out. Now as with any large government bureaucracy, when you involve another arm of the government, you get even more people than just those you needed. I mean if you go to the Air Force and secretly hire away some pilots, well then very few people even know that anything has happened, and all they know is that the CIA wants some flyboys. If you have the AF run it, well now you have all kinds of additional people who know about it.

    A big part of keeping secrets is compartmentalizing information, and restricting access to the minimum amount of people.

    1. Re:Because if two people know, it's not a secret by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      ...all they know is that the CIA wants some flyboys.

      I would be surprised if they have never hired pilots or other specialists that people will notice being gone for a few days, and didn't use them; just for the misdirection.

  36. Declassified years ago? by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    Ben Rich's book, Skunk Works, his memoir of working at Lockheed and eventually directing the Skunk Works, mentions OXCART as the A-12's code name. It also discusses the test area (not using name "Area 51," but by the well-known alias "Paradise Ranch"), and a variety of other interesting projects from both the Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich eras at SW. The U-2, A-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds, and the F-117 are discussed in surprising detail.

    Fun fact: the A-12 (CIA Blackbird) was retired and the SR-71 two-seater version was built for the USAF because the blue-suiters didn't like the idea of the CIA having its own private air force...

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  37. Nothng new here by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of this info is in Ben Rich's book, "Skunk Works". The story doesn't have much if any new information. The SR-71 story is well known, and there's one at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. (They have the engineering documents for it, too, which can be seen on request.) Most of the stealth aircraft were tested at Area 51.

    There are other sites "near" Area 51. Jackass Flats was a well known nuclear test area in the 1950s. (You can't really hide atmospheric nuclear testing.) The Sedan crater, from a nuclear test, is in that area. It's interesting to look at the area in Google Maps. There are all sorts of little abandoned installations in the Nellis Bombing Range area.

    Back in the 1980s, the Lockheed Skunk Works ran a small ad in Aviation Week. It said only "If you missed out on this one (picture of U-2) and on this one (picture of SR-71) how'd you like to get in on the next one? Lockheed Skunk Works, Burbank, CA." That's how you got into stealth aircraft.

    There's still a big USAF black budget, and it doubled during the Bush years. The question is whether much useful is coming out.

    1. Re:Nothng new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one in Seattle isn't actually a SR-71: It's the only surviving M-21, an A-12 variant designed to carry the D-21 hypersonic reconnaissiance drone. It's also got one of the ten surviving D-21 drones on its back.

      (The whole museum is worth visiting just to see that airplane.)

    2. Re:Nothng new here by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's still a big USAF black budget, and it doubled during the Bush years. The question is whether much useful is coming out.

      If the US was operating the SR-71 Blackbird, an aircraft that is using 25% of it's engine power, to *cruise* at mach 3 almost 40 years ago I would have little doubt that it's replacement is at least twice as fast. One thing is for certain I doubt we will know what the actual capabilities are for another couple of decades.

      This replacement aircraft is allegedly the SR-91 Aurora. I recently watched a documentary by a reporter from a Jane's Defence Weekly who showed weather satellite image of a 'doughnut on a rope' contrails starting at Groom Lake, extending across the United States, over the Pacific Ocean and out of camera range of the the satellite. The conjecture is that the aircraft has been in service for many years and powered by Pulse Detonation Engines. Estimates from an examination of the photo suggests the aircraft was moving at roughly Mach 8.

      The development budget was apparently concealed in the budget for the B-2, who knows if it's true but I'd say that the existence of the SR-91(?) Aurora(?) if far more likely than little grey men. Then again who really knows anything in super secret compartmentalised spy world, I'm just a geek who'd one day like to see the technology involved. Here are some more links for those interested.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. See, there WERE UFOs at Area 51 by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone who saw a U2 or SR71 or F117 or other "black" aircraft flying around in the airspace near Area 51 would not have recognized what it was unless they has a security clearance. Ergo, to the general public, all of these "black" aircraft would (at the time they were being tested at Area 51 and before the public knew about it) have been Unidentified Flying Objects.
    Whether there has ever been aliens at Area 51 is another matter altogether.

    1. Re:See, there WERE UFOs at Area 51 by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      No, all three of the aircraft you've described are easily recognized as aircraft, and would have easily been recognized as aircraft even in the 1950's.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:See, there WERE UFOs at Area 51 by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The F-117 looked like nothing built on Earth previously; it looked like something that flew in from the set of "Star Wars". The B-2 is equally alien-looking. Now that we've had stealth aircraft around for a while, and people have gotten used to their look, it's easy to say "oh, it's obvious they're terrestrial aircraft".

      It wasn't back then. I strongly suspect that the F-117 and the B-2 generated more than a few UFO reports back before they were officially acknowledged to exist. I also suspect that the YF-22 and YF-23's abilities to fly sideways (3D thrust vectoring, dynamic instability) provoked a few UFO reports during early tests when the planes were still Top Secret because of the "impossible maneuvers for an airplane" bit.

      --
      ---dragoness
    3. Re:See, there WERE UFOs at Area 51 by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The F-117 looked like nothing built on Earth previously

      It has a fuselage, two clearly discernable swept wings, and a pair of vertical stabilizers, and from the ground looks like an airplane, especially when seen only in silhouette. The B-2 is a little bit more out of the ordinary, but not substantially different in appearance than the B-49 that was flying in the *1940's*, and people have known what turbine engines sound like for just as long.

      I suppose a few truly clueless people might have called them in as UFOs, but even today truly clueless people continue to call in Venus as a UFO, even though man has had untold thousands of years to get used to the idea of it occasionally being visible in the evening/morning sky.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  39. Hidden revelations from the article.. by homesnatch · · Score: 5, Funny

    The truth comes out, but was hard to find in the article...

    Colonel Hugh 'Slip' Slater, 87, was commander of the Area 51 base in the 1960s. Thornton 'T.D.' Barnes, 72, was an Area 51 special-projects engineer. Xorbz Blazzeet, 179, from the Orion system was dissected and stored in an Area 51 freezer for 16 years. And Harry Martin, 77, was one of the men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels.

  40. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point, I wonder if the government continues to deny its existence just to continue the myth. If they acknowledged it now, and told everybody all about what they've been doing out there, it would kill a chunk of modern folklore.

  41. Gayness book? But no one would read it... by RudeIota · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  42. Hm. Not terribly classified already.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This snippet from the National Museum of the US Air Force mentions the A-12 and has a link to the YF-12A, which was developed from the A-12, and has been on display in Dayton, OH for over a decade now.

    http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2699

  43. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Hordeking · · Score: 1

    Lying to the american public, drugging the pilot, forcing the civilians to sign a non-disclosure agreement... it's a good thing they kept this spy plane so secret. If the Kremlin had learned what our prototypes looked like at that point, the russian economy probably would have been much stronger, they never would have embarked on those economic reforms that backfired, and they eventually would have won the cold war.

    Well, at least we're done with the ridiculous and pointless paranoia of the cold war. It would be terrible if our government were to get us into another "war" with a mostly imagined enemy in order to justify absurd spending on ridiculously overpowered and overpriced weapons, a bigger military, and a quieter citizenry, while stepping all over our god-given rights in the meantime and spying on us. Really dodged a bullet there.

    Yeah, because the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, War on Pirates don't give the gov't any excuses to trample on our rights as citizens in the name of national "security theatre".

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
  44. So, what are we to believe by Hordeking · · Score: 1

    Since the government has been lying about this one for the past 50 years, and making up all sorts of inane shite to cover, if they don't outright deny it, am I supposed to believe this? Thus they have done their job of cloaking it in secrecy for the ages.

    Of course, this explanation is entirely plausable, and I've suspected that it was pretty much what was going on. Of course, I can never know for sure, because this could just be yet more misinformation.

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
  45. Re:I know too much by vishbar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Joke's on you. They made an alien governor up there.

    --
    Ride the skies
  46. how do we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we know that this story isn't really just a cover up for the UFO's at the site? You know, Occam's law.

  47. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SR-71 was still in official operation late into the 1990s, the official service record is from 1964 to 1998. This year, about 10 years after it was retired, is about the right time I would expect the government to start talking about that plane.

    As a kid growing up in the 1980s, I remember building a plastic model airplane version of the SR-71. I also remember watching the IMAX movie "Speed" that had a segment about the SR-71, including many in-flight closeups.

    The SR-71 wasn't that secret.

  48. RE: Sky Captain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wireless Speaker: Calling Sky Captain ... Calling Sky Captain.

    Wireless Speaker: Emergency Frequency 02118

    Wireless Speaker: Emergenty Frequency 02118

    Wireless Speaker: Calling Sky Captain ...

    Sky Captain: This is Sky Captain ... I'm on my way!

  49. "Declassified"? by afabbro · · Score: 1

    This seems more like "some dude gives an interview" rather than "officially declassified by the government"...?

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  50. Area 52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Do you know what's next to Area 51? Area 52...

    Um, I'm pretty sure that Area 52 is in southwestern Netherstorm.

    http://www.wowwiki.com/Area_52

    Duh.

    -AC

  51. Fastwalkers 2006 Disclosure by cagrin · · Score: 1

    For those who haven't seen it yet, Fastwalkers 2006 Disclosure Project

    You can't handle the truth! ;)

    --
    ~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
  52. read the book by brian642 · · Score: 1

    Much of this "new" information was published in 1985 Kelly Johnson's biography, "More than My Share of it all". A fabulous read: http://tinyurl.com/d4ej8b

    --
    ----- The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -- Benjamin Franklin
  53. the real scandal by dickbot · · Score: 1

    to develop multi-billion dollar jet aircrafts for the sole purpose of concealing reverse-engineered secret antigrav air-to-space troop transports (project XBLuRG)shows the utter disregard of the Air Force for taxpayers' money.

    We demand congressional hearings on this issue RIGHT NOW !

    signed : PETT (People for the Ethical Treatment of Taxpayers)

  54. declassified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone that's ever held a clearance can enjoy this news, even if it isn't as exciting as the enthusiasts around Area-51 feel let down.

    It says to everyone else "Hey, maybe, some far off day in the future, you'll finally get to say 'I worked on that one thing.'"

  55. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Not just mothballed, actually put on public display.

  56. Towelie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to bring a towel!

  57. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by syousef · · Score: 1

    If the Kremlin had learned what our prototypes looked like at that point, the russian economy probably would have been much stronger, they never would have embarked on those economic reforms that backfired, and they eventually would have won the cold war.

    I'll say. We were fucking working on OX CARTS.

    A classic case of putting the cart before the OX.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  58. I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE. I WANT TO KNOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If OXCART is the big news that makes me wonder about these particular accounts.

    During the 1942 Battle of Los Angeles the military instituted a mandatory black out of the entire city of LA & fired 1400+ Anti-Aircraft rounds at a single, quoting the military, "unidentified aircraft." The shelling lasted more than an hour. Despite numerous confirmed hits the craft remained airborne and eventually flew off without ever being identified. (Read the 1942 LA times article).

    In 1948 green fireballs were seen over the south-western skies of the US near nuclear weapons research sites. Famous meteoriticist Dr. Lincoln La Paz declared they weren't normal meteors. In 1949 the USAF started Project Twinkle under the direction of Dr. Anthony Mirarchi.

    The study concluded in a now declassified report that cinetheodolites had tracked 4 objects traveling at an "altitude of ~150K ft" (~28.5 miles!), were "30 ft. in diameter", & traveling at an "undeterminable, yet high speed." Mirarchi went on to later criticize a Time magazine article that claimed there was no proof to support the existence of UFOs.

    Mirarchi wrote, "There was too much evidence in favor of saucers to say they could have all been balloons. 'I was conducting the main investigation. The government had to depend on me or my branch for information.' He said he didn't see how the Navy could say there had been no concrete evidence of the phenomena." (see here for more details)

    Also in 1948 Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a self-proclaimed skeptic, joined Project Blue Book as a scientific adviser. By 1969 when Blue Book was shutdown Hynek did an about face. He wrote several books, particularly, "The Hynek UFO Report" which repeatedly stated that the attitude of Blue Book was, "it can't be therefore it isn't."

    He also gave an interview, available on YouTube, where he said, "I was there at Blue Book and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, don't rock the boat, & I saw it [with] my own eyes. ... The cases that were very difficult to explain they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from that." He later went on to found the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).

    July 13 - 29th of 1952, over the skies of Washington DC, numerous UFOs were seen by observers on the ground, in the air, & tracked on radar. The situation escalated & General Samford, the Director of Intelligence of the USAF, held an emergency press conference. When asked by reporters what people were seeing he suggested the lights on the ground may have looked like they were in the air because inversions act like an "air lens" & bend light rays. He added that something similar could have "tricked" radar in to thinking it was tracking aerial targets. (ufologie.net...)

    In 1969 an Air Force scientific report titled "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages" (Menkello, F.G. Report No. 6112, USAF, Environmental Technical Applications Center) made it clear inversions strong enough to create the visual effect described during the 1952 press-conference could not exist in earth's atmosphere.

    1956 at RAF Bentwaters, Lakenheath, & Sculthorpe an object was sighted by several military officers on the ground while simultaneously tracked on radar at 2 different stations. The object moved at ~4000 mph and was monitored for several hours during which two planes were scrambled.

    When the 1st de Havilland Venom locked on to the object the UFO shot to the rear of the plane. The pilot tried evasive maneuvers, couldn't break free & eventually had to return to base to refuel.

    The 2nd plane encountered mechanical difficulties as it flew within range of the object. The

  59. Aviation Week is the best non-classified source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Aviation Week magazine is the best non-classified source for information on old, new, and proposed aircraft. "Black" projects can only remain "Black" as long as development occurs or if they are tiny.

    Find a library with a subscription to Aviation Week if you want to know more. When I was in the business, it was about $300 for an annual subscription. Hopefully they have online versions now for much less cost.

  60. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Kremlin, OX puts CART before YOU!

    Sigh.

  61. I WANT TO BELIEVE too... by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    ...but the story is in the LA Times.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  62. what no aliens by nostradamus2009 · · Score: 1

    shit no aliens or elvis... that's a shame!!!

  63. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, War on Pirates don't give the gov't any excuses to trample on our rights as citizens in the name of national "security theatre".

    Wait, was the sarcasm in my post not thick enough to notice, or are you being serious there?

  64. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Molochi · · Score: 1

    There was an SR-71 (and the YF-16) at the Carswell AFB Airshow in 1975 or 1976. It was still secret enough at that point that the output of the engines and true top speed was still classified, but everyone knew what it looked like and it's speed record was posted in Guiness at the time. They had an armed guard and a velvet rope to keep people from getting too close or going around behind the plane, I think. I was told at the time that the skin of the plane was very thin and could be damaged easily, but I'm pretty sure that was just a story so the airman wouldn't have to point his Ar-15 at 9 year olds. They had a rope around the YF-16 as well, but it was sittig out on the tarmac, the SR71 was half in a hangar. My elementary school was 1-2 miles southwest of the end of the runway and the blackbird left the base while we were at recess. Pretty much straight up like a rocket. The only other plane that could climb like that then was the F-15 I think and I never saw one go balistic like that. One of those cool things you remember from childhood anyways. Most badass looking plane ever.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  65. SR-71's are easy to see by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    There is an SR-71 on display at Hill AFB in Utah. I am sure there are others. Safe to say they are probably mostly decommissioned.

  66. WIlliam Cooper - Behold a Pale Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    William Cooper's book "Behold A Pale Horse" is a must read! http://bit.ly/R7HBx

  67. Re:Good thing they kept it so secret by Hordeking · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, War on Pirates don't give the gov't any excuses to trample on our rights as citizens in the name of national "security theatre".

    Wait, was the sarcasm in my post not thick enough to notice, or are you being serious there?

    No, the sarcasm was quite clear. I just felt like adding a little more to it, though I wasn't taking a sarcastic tack.

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci