Talk:Area 51/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What is the origin of the name Area51?

Everybody knows the term but who used it first? 85.83.19.103 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen

Area 51 comes from the Zone it is placed in, the Nellis range is separated into differant Zones/Areas, and Groom lake happens to be on Area 51, thus that is the name, there is no first person to use it, as it is just the name of the zone it is placed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNatonstan (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are unregisted people disabled to improve this article?

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

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

anyone whos reading this needs to get a better life cause this is all fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.143.175 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why are people vandlizing it? Is it like conspiracy theorists bttle grounds here or somthing? 173.75.211.78 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Visible from Vegas airspace?

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

I imagine that the base itself will be very distantly viewable, as you say - probably as something of a nondescript splotch. That would confirm the existence of the base (which really nobody denies) but I don't think there's any chance of anyone seeing anything interesting. Indeed, you can fly much closer to it (Tom Mahood's page details a flight someone took right along the perimeter of the restricted area) in general aviation aircraft. The proximity to Vegas does make it likely that they're less comfortable testing their super-secret stuff there, I guess: back in the '50s Vegas barely existed, and Groom must have seemed like the utter back of beyond. But with Vegas a huge and fast-growing city, Groom probably isn't out-of-the-way enough. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well unless you have a 300x zoom along with you you dont have chance of seeing anything and I highly doubt that youll get on a plane with a camera these days (ref. terrorism) (unknown anom)

It's actually really easy to get onboard a plane with a camara; most cell phones bought within about the last two years have one built in. But your not going to get a better image from it than you can from satelights. Personally if I were running Groom, I would use it's existance to distract people from where the current real secret labs are. (And I'd locate the real places in areas less visible to satelights). Jon (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's probably visible by plane from some places and there's no rules against bringing a camera on a scheduled flight with you. However, I doubt you'd get any photos that'd reveal anything beyond what you can see on photos taken from hilltops or the existing satellite imagery. BabyNuke (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I flew through the area many times back in the early 1990s and even from the Indian Springs area, which is about 30 miles away, it's very difficult to see anything except a vague hint of pavement and buildings. The air routes north and east of the base are not any closer. They concealed the site really well. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's no chance you took a photo that we could use in the article? Even a blurry photo of vague pavement and buildings would be better than nothing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Black mesa

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

I think the first Half-Life was inspired by Area 51. I can see how this person got mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.162.173 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And your reliable source is? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

JANET route map

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

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

GTA san andreas

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

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

WPMilHist assessment

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

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

Victor's videotape on Art Bell

I deleted this paragraph:

“ In July 1996, a man named "Victor" announced on Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM radio show that he had a videotape of an alien interrogation that took place in Area 51. He claimed that he had made a copy of the tape during a scheduled transfer of analog videotape files on the base into digital form, and had then smuggled the copy out of Area 51. The video appears to show the head of an alien creature in a dark interrogation room, allegedly using telepathy to communicate with military personnel and scientists.. ”

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

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

One of the most secretive places

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

I think the article is distinguishing between "secret" and "secretive". As you can not approach within a several mile radius of the area surrounding Area 51 without driving over pressure-sensors which then send out armed men in big vans to scare you away, kind of defines the place as being "secretive". Obviously though, the fact that it is so infamous makes it very non-secret! Tachyon502 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a secret as we know it's there. It's secretive because virtually nothing is told about it by the government. BabyNuke (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OXCART image

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

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

Another mystery airport

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

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

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

You may be refering to the small airstrip that has become known as Basecamp. It is used as an emergency airstrip,unused commercially of course.LordNatonstan (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits

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

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

Road to Area 51

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

I agree, one of the editors on this article should look into it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some cites from the Times piece. There's not really that much that's a) not already there and b) is appropriate for the article. YLee (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, regretfully I agree. There's so little about this subject in mainstream media and reliable sources - but there's not much in there (about Area 51) that's not already here. It does mention NERVA at Jackass Flats, so that's worth a mention here (and Jackass isn't Area 51; we need to resist the media's temptation to label anything weird that happens in NTS as being "Area 51". Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly me, NERVA is already mentioned. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Spacecraft

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

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

Portrayal in media and popular culture: is that it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote/Source #13 is a dead link

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

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

Referencing and citation

• http://www.darkgovernment.com/a51.html
• http://area51specialprojects.com/groomlake.html

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

Here is another,

• http://www.crystalinks.com/area51.html

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

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

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

I see and you are right, it is not easy to find many reliable sources and my guess is mostly because of how unknown the facility is. you would need someone that used to work there to get any information. Most of the websites i found just seem to be copies from this wikipedia page.173.75.141.177 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball????

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

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

There is also a minor league baseball team in nearby Las Vegas called the Las Vegas 51s, which takes its name and alien logo after Area 51. I added information about that in the main article. JasonMath (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural reference: Area 52 in World of Warcraft

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

Migs&Sukois

I watched a documentary: US pilots practiced dogfighting with rescued/stolen migs/sukois during Cold War in Area 51. And the rumors about aliens, probably just to distract the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.99.124 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article says "a small number of Soviet-designed aircraft" (please tell us the full name of the documentary you saw, as we'd benefit from a corroborating reference for this fact). I've seen a documentary about Area 51 (I think it was Phil Patton's) in which he theories that cow mutilations and Roswell shenanigans were deliberate USAF misdirection (to make anyone who saw weird planes in the area look like a wacko) - but he didn't have any actual evidence of this, so I didn't think it worth citing in the article (speculation, even from a reliable source like Patton, can quickly get out of hand). So "maybe, but we don't know" is the real answer - but if that's what they were doing, it'd be to cover up U2/SR71 (etc.), rather than sov-blok planes that everyone knew they had (because they'd come from defecting pilots). -- Finlay McWalter Talk 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some more info about these "Red Eagles", citing a book about that unit. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AREA 51 HAS UFO`S

i went online to google and i found satellite pictures of ufo`s. I saw a flying sauser, arkbirds mock 1,000 jet engines wich travel at the speed of light. if you dont believe me look it up on google.com/area 51/maps/satelite photo.lets see what the government has to say about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.249.100 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Eagles - section removed

I removed the entire section, as it was full of glaring inaccuracies. The 4477th TES operated out of Area 52, which is practically next door, more commonly known as the Tonopah Test Range Airport. Also, Constant Peg was a classified operation aimed at providing realistic dogfight training to selected aircrews. It wasn't a scheduled exercise, not everybody got to have a go (far from it!), and since the program had a NOFORN classification, NATO never came into the picture. The last phrase would be fine in the Wright-Pat article, but on its own it is no longer relevant in the article. I'm pasting the removed section in here, so whoever put it into the article in the first place would know why it had to be taken out behind the shed and put out of its misery. Dunee (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Groom was home to elements of Gail Peck's 4477th Test & Evaluation Squadron, the "Red Eagles", who flew a number of Soviet-designed aircraft (obtained from defecting Eastern Bloc pilots) which were secretly analyzed and used for training purposes, flying against US and NATO pilots as part of the annual Constant Peg exercise. With the end of the cold war, the USAF and its civilian contractor Tac-Air have augmented this secret fleet with a number of aircraft bought openly from Ukraine and Moldova, and operated from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

May I ask where you learned this information, about Area 52? It is not called as such in the article referenced above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know?

to the east from 51 area there are this: 37°24'5.00"N 116°52'4.00"E ? wtf?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.24.208.18 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be west instead of east I think. Anyway, those facilities look to be a part of the Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range. Google it. BabyNuke (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate errors

The coordinates in the infobox aren't the same position as the Coord template at the bottom (source code) and top of the page. The Coord position at the top/bottom is correct, the position in the infobox is 40Km southwest in the Tonopah Test range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.25.211.242 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New Image

Area 51 gate located on Groom Road

I was wonder if we can add this image somewhere in the file? Its a fairly recent picture of the gate. I would do it myself but. 1. I cant edit this page and. 2. Even if i could, I wouldn't want to annoy anyone.Tim1337 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is my own image Tim1337 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has an image much like yours in it already. The other image has a govt vehicle in it as well, though yours has better focus on the sign's text. I think we should keep the existing image with the vehicle atop the hill. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I partially agree maybe we can just have the image cropped to focus on the sign and what it says. Emphasizing the consequence on trespassing. On the other picture you cant make out what the small print says. Also it was never confirmed that the vehicle is military or govt. Its possibly a private security company. Tim1337 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Correction Govt plates on vehicles although security is private Tim1337 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Area 51 mentioned in declassified CIA memo

Primary source

"OXCART Reconnaissance of North Vietnam" 5/15/1967

Memo
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0002.gif

Reference to Area 51 on page 15
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0017.gif
"Three OXCART aircraft and the necessary task force personnel will be deployed from Area 51 to Kadena."

IHTFP (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

nice find! --Enemenemu (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they slipped up, because they blacked out what appears to be "Area 51" on the next page.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001471747/0001471747_0018.gif

"The OXCART aircraft will be flown non-stop from Area 51 to Kadena..."

To see other pages, just edit the last two digits in the link.

IHTFP (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So if it was declassified that means at some point it was a secret? Meaning part of a conspiracy about it was in fact true? Shouldn't there be a section about government cover up? If it was declassified then it was a cover up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.190 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (ETC)

What do you know, Government cover ups and conspiracies are real, who would of guessed. So how many lies were posted prior to this saying Area 51 didn't exist when indeed it did this entire time? Perhaps other articles citing the Government is also wrong. Now there is absolute proof they cover up such things. 24.94.249.157 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good article in the Seattle Times

httpd://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011461015_argumentativeness

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I just dropped in to post that I added that article to External links, and suggest that if there's enough information available from various reliable sources perhaps a section on 'Area 51 vets' might be added. Great minds think alike. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Times piece. I removed the external link as I've incorporated cites from it into the body of this article and of Lockheed A-12. YLee (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture section cleanup

The Popular Culture section is an out-of-control mess. We really do not need every single mention of Area 51 in any book, video game, or movie. I propose to delete most of the examples and replace the section with a few paragraphs akin to Caltech's article. Only media in which Area 51 play an important part will appear, with no more than one or two per each type. YLee (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The sigma patch photo is upside down!

FWIW Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please edit the description under the sigma letter. It is inaccurate.

Can somebody please finally edit the description that appears in the main page about the letter sigma? It is upside down, and thus not a sigma letter at all. If in doubt check Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma). Plus, there is no reference whatsoever to support the accuracy of the information provided (whether it really does appear on stealth aircrafts).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody sundae (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 ... I noticed this also. I clicked on the image and the reason for it being inverted apparently has to do with the specific stylizing of the symbol to make it unique for the Air Force, Have Blue program, Groom Lake, NTTR, or whom/whatever... I'll look into it more. For now it would be nice if the caption for the image on the main page is the same as its detailed description ...or at least mentions why it is flipped horizontally/upside down. It would also be nice if the original poster gave a better explanation or origin for the image. ETA: Just looked at Flakeyswilson's talk page, other people have commented. Maybe he'll check back soon...—Jeffman1911 (talk) 09:18, 30 Nov 2010 (UTC)

 Done Depictionimage (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

screenshot possibility

If I could get a screenshot from a wide overvie of area 51 if anyone wants me to. I could do so using google earth which i have on my personal laptop. ~~unknown~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

N Sorry - Google Earth imagery is copyrighted, and not really appropriate for usage in the Wikipedia: "Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia". See the image use policy and image guidelines for information regarding uploading images that you did not yourself create. Downloading an image or taking a screen shot of something you found on the Internet that is created and owned by Google Earth or Virtual Earth or Yahoo! Maps or MapQuest (etc.), or taking a photograph of pages from the Rand McNally road atlas, does not make it your own for free distribution to others. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

whats a way I can get a better image of area 51 without copyright? I could get it done that way later. 68.70.14.63 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)unknown68.70.14.63 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no way. If we knew of a way, we'd have done it already. We already use the best free imagery that exists. You can't go there, on the ground or in the air, to take a better photo. 86.164.11.154 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors Need to Fix

In the 1974 Skylab photography section there a few mistakes. One is an open italics tag being outputted as text. The other is a 'redant' tag. Not sure what the redant tag is and it might not be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.93.134 (talk • contribs)

Gross distortions

The biggest load of crap and disinformation!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.65.85 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is very helpful indeed. Fnj2 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Detachment of Edwards???

I thought it was Nellis AFB? 129.100.254.154 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too. Edwards is in California. Jimmattor (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC) jimmattor

"Detachment" mean "not attached". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Area 51/ Groom Lake is north of Nells AFB, but it functions as Det 3 (Detachment 3) of the Air Force Fight Test Center, which is at Edwards AFB in Calafornia </nowiki>

Interlink request

Section "UFO and other conspiracy theories concerning Area 51" list, last line: "Activities related to a supposed shadowy one world government...". The current link goes to the legitimate theory of a world government. To better connect to the conspiracy theory as related to Area 51, I request the hidden link of [[New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Alien Invasion|one world government]] be added. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done That makes sense to me, so I've gone ahead and made the change. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Inspections permitted

International inspections are permitted under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Those inspections may include the use of unmodified civilian UAVs, including ones with infrared, High Definition and 3D cameras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

JT3 Support

JT3 provides engineering and technical support for the AFFTC and NTTR, and by extension, Area 51.
http://jt3.com/jt3.asp IHTFP (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That website appears to be down. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Try again. IHTFP (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The site blocks traffic from outside the US and Canada - try pointing host-tracker at it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Project 57

I found no mention here of Project 57 [sic], where part of Area 51 is now plutonium-contaminated for perhaps 24,000 years. See http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/9/annie_jacobsen_on_new_book_area and I will leave it to those of you who've been more invoved in ths Area 51 WP page, to decide what style and where to put a sub-section here on Project 57 but this is not speculation (see above DemocracyNow.org url) "..the Defense Department and the Atomic Energy Commission in 1957 wanted to know what would happen if one of their bombers carrying a nuclear weapon were to crash on American soil. Would a mushroom cloud explode, or would something else happen? And so they performed this test out there, which in essence is a dirty bomb test. And yes, indeed, what happened was plutonium was disbursed over 895 acres, just a little bit north of Groom Lake at Area 51. And as we know, plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years...That land was contaminated, and it is also still contaminated today, despite ongoing efforts to clean it up.." --Harel (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The source would properly be the book, rather than a discussion about it. The Annie Jacobsen article has some excerpts of reviews of the book, with several reliable sources including snopes, Dwayne Day, and historian Richard Rhodes, calling it "error-ridden", "unreliable", and "false". Still, we should mention it. Unfortunately it's not available in the UK for me to read. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems it now is available in the UK; I've ordered a copy. I don't know how to handle cases where it makes claims unsupported by corroborating sources. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Several people uploaded the book to Scribd. Search for Area 51 Jacobsen.

For example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56156853/Area-51-Annie-Jacobsen

I would use it the same way I use Wikipedia, as a source of leads, without putting faith into its unverifiable claims, like the whole Soviet Nazi UFO story.

There are other sources on Project 57. It wasn't done at Area 51, but if it had a significant impact on Area 51, it's worth mentioning, same way Chernobyl is mentioned in the article on Belarus. 71.105.108.191 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

post by nathan1001100

I Username nathan1001100 have found on google maps, satellite, and earth have found AREA 51 i am not kidding you seriosly look up adress: groom lake and then it shoul say groom lake NV united states and you shuld seea big white lake up is area 51 or just look at the pictureon the top of the article screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan1001100 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything you describe is already discussed, with good sources, in the article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Area 51 unit patch

Another connection between the Air Force Flight Test Center and Area 51. The following patch says "Air Force Flight Test Center" at the top, but has a star closer to Nevada than to California. The caption on the right says the unit operates "out of a secret Air Force base near Groom Lake."
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03/31/science/0401-PATCH_3.html IHTFP (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Story in The Independent

I don't have time to work on this now, but The Independent did a story today about Area 51 (so I'm leaving this here as a reminder if no-one else does something on it first) - it's at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-very-secret-history-of-area-51-2306942.html -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add links to Boeing 737 and f-16

C1r9u9m3p (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please give appropriate references to reliable sources, and re-request.  Chzz  ►  00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request on 2 December 2011

Find "fromthe MiG-17" and replace with "from the MiG-17"

80.168.129.186 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for pointing this out--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Area 51 28 August 1968 6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Area 51 28 August 1968 6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, bravo, bravissimo! I think all the article should be deleted, we should begin again to trust our governments, we should look at them as the fathers of the state and the patriarchs of the church, yes, we owe them BLIND TRUST, the same for the deleting bots that are useful for them, that are holy instruments to teach us BLIND TRUST. Hmm, thinking again about it, i wonder why nobody had the inspiration to build an uncensored and uncutted Wikipedia Clone, widespread in many sites and many countries, maybe in shortest time poeple would read only this clone instead of the original... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.211.28 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

The article on "Area 51" contains the following paragraph-

Groom saw the first flight of most major Blackbird variants: A-12, the abortive YF-12A interceptor variant designed to intercept Soviet manned bombers, and the D-21 Blackbird-based drone project. By the end of 1963, nine A-12s were at Area 51. A mock-up of the "Reconnaissance Strike-71" (RS-71) was inspected by the Air Force on 4 June 1962. The concept of a strike A-12 with strategic bombing capabilities ran into political problems from both the Air Force, which was involved with the XB-70 Valkyrie program at the time and a lack of enthusiasm from Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara. McNamara and his "whiz kids" saw no need for additional manned bombers in the age of ICBMs. In addition McNamara was phasing down Air Defense Command and saw no use for the YF-12A Interceptor. Accordingly, only the reconnaissance version of the RS-71 remained (it kept the "strike" part of the name, however). Where the A-12 was deiigned for clandestine overflights of Soviet territory, the RS-71 carried additional side-looking cameras and other sensors which gave it much greater capabilities. On December 27–28, 1962, a contract was issued to Lockheed to build six test RS-71s.[31]

In the 2nd last sentence, there is a spelling mistake. Kindly change "deiigned" to "designed" Anoopvasudevan89 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by User:Bwmoll3. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

most all your links from this page - try using ONE and only (1) town.

—184.98.180.46 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Declined as unintelligible. Please feel free to relist — just delete the "tlc|" in the geodata-check tag — and provide a better explanation of what you mean. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What county or counties is it in?

Ummm, if it isn't some kind of highly classified secret, maybe somebody could just blurt out what county it is in. Maybe somewhere in the first paragraph. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's in Lincoln County; both the Lincoln County sheriff and tax assessor are mentioned in the article, and the article is in Category:Buildings and structures in Lincoln County, Nevada. The county lines are shown in the map. Not every detail can be in the lede. Nuclear Duck (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A wild QUOTATION mark appeared!

Under the D-21 Tagboard section, end of the second paragraph. Would fix it myself, but you know, locked and all that.

With the D-21's systems activated and running, and the launch aircraft at the correct point, the M-21 would begin a slight pushover, the LCO would push a final button, and the D-21 would come off the pylon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.225.35 (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading further into that section

However, the fact is that the resumptions of D-21 tests took place against a changing reconnaissance background. The A-12 had finally been allowed to deploy, and the SR-71 was soon to replace it. At the same time, new developments in reconnaissance satellite technology were nearing operation. Up to this point, the limited number of satellites available restricted coverage to the Soviet Union. A new generation of reconnaissance satellites could soon cover targets anywhere in the world. The satellites' resolution would be comparable to that of aircraft, but without the slightest political risk. Time was running out for the Tagboard.

Not the usual wikipedia tone, and ending in a citation, I'm guessing a good chunk is copied and pasted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.225.35 (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't sound right either:

Over the past 20 years since the end of F-117A testing, the base has been expanded with new facilities, and a new main runway being built in the 1990s. Ongoing projects at Area 51 may include stealth aircraft development, weapons development, unmanned aerial vehicles, and avionics testing. Workers toil in relative isolation and inhospitable conditions at the site to prove revolutionary technologies and enhance the readiness of today's warfighter and support national requirements.

Also ending in a citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.225.35 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"This is a patch possibly worn or used at Groom Lake"

Here is an image of "a patch possibly worn or used at Groom Lake". I think its pretty ridiculous having it there. Remove it? 86.181.54.196 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a pretty silly addition to the article. Phiwum (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

Typographical error. "Aireal" should be replaced with "aerial". Someone must be putting the "sexy" in "dyslexia".

206.28.38.227 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted and corrected. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Commuter Service Background Information

Under Background Information --> Later Operations The Forth and last paragraph reads as follows:

Commuter service is provided along Groom Lake Road by a bus, catering to a small number of employees living in several small communities beyond the NTS boundary (although it is not clear whether these workers are employed at Groom or at other facilities in the NTS). The bus travels Groom Lake Road and stops at Crystal Springs, Ash Springs, and Alamo, and parks at the Alamo courthouse overnight.

The last sentence reads that a bus travels along Groom Lake Road and Parks and night at the Alamo Courthouse overnight. I would like to add that the bus departs from Alamo Courthouse at 6:30am sharp and departs from the military base at 4pm sharp. The bus follows this route, Monday to Friday, 5 days a week, consistently throughout the year excluding the following recognized national holidays of importance [in order of occurrence]:

1. Memorial Day [Last Monday in May]
2. Independence Day [4th July]
3. Labor day [First Monday in September]

The bus itself resembles similar appearance to a conventional prison bus in which the front windshield and 28 passenger windows [14 each side] have been blacked out and the bus is white in color. The windows are presumed bulletproof and the shell / case of the bus is considered bullet / ballistics [explosive] proof.

whether or not this information is considered relevant to the topic, i would like you to take it into consideration. Thankyou for taking your time to read this post

Regards, (Hædphone (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC))

Sources: "Alien Highway, directed by Michael Dale Brown, Roger Mexico and Robert Fowler" To which Michael Dale Brown observers area 51 Military Base from Freedom Point

Edit request on 12 June 2012

this is false information

72.187.90.111 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What's Here?

37.405346,-116.236725 Looks like an unused set of runways.

or here 37.710714,-116.44598

68.148.233.117 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The unused runway is probably part of the bombing range (note the aircraft abandoned on the runway as well). There's more stuff like that around there. The other site is harder to say. Just west of that location there's four radar dishes though, so I imagine it has to do with that.BabyNuke (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Climate

Desert heat is mentioned but no actual numbers for average temperatures and such. Thanks 68.148.233.117 (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What meteorological services there must be there (for one can't run an airstrip without some weather service) they don't publish their results. The approximate weather and climate can be inferred from nearby places for which public weather records do exist, such as Alamo, Nevada. But Alamo isn't at the same altitude, and is behind a different array of mountains, so Groom will be, if only marginally, different. But we don't, and I think won't, have reliable sources which give accurate meteorology - so anything we put into the article specifically for Groom would just be a guess. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Code names

This article, written by a former employee at Groom Lake, would appear to be a reliable source for code names and some interesting snippets of history, if anyone wants to use it. Le Deluge (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my yes. I like the photos of the facility as well as the information provided in the article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Secrecy

According to this article ([1]), and contrary to popular belief, Area 51 was never secret, at least not until the Air Force took over in the 1970's and attempted to deny its existence despite decades of public evidence to the contrary.

This would thus completely contradict the introduction:

The intense secrecy surrounding the base, whose very existence the U.S. government did not even acknowledge until 29 September 1995.

Before I change anything I'd like to have other people read it. It is somewhat long but interesting. Obviously this requires corroborating evidence but the argument is convincing. I especially liked the examples of early public government documents (like maps) mentioning the base. If all this is true it shouldn't be difficult to find these documents directly from the horse (USGov)'s mouth and to find sources for the various quotes. Bomazi (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly a reliable source, so no edits should be made based on anything said at that website. As far as the "intense secrecy" part of that sentence, that's backed up by a multitude of verifiable information regarding the overall secrecy of the place, such as the tight security, the fact that a county tax assessor is unable to enter the property to assess it, and the White House agreeing that Groom Lake is exempt from federal environmental laws due to national security. The potential contradiction is clarified in Area 51#U.S. government's positions on Area 51, which states that the government did little more than acknowledge that at least something was there, 1995 was the first real acknowledgement that was was happening there was too important to talk about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just basic logic. They are two very different options:

1. The government denies that a base even exists.
2. The government acknowledges that a base exists but doesn't discuss the work conducted there nor allows access.

Before 1995, it either did (1) or (2), not both at the same time. The current version of the article claims (1) in the sentence I quoted and then we see a CIA document that corroborates (2). So clearly the introductory sentence is factually wrong and must be changed.

This is not bad writing or a mere potential error, but a very real one that must be fixed. Note also that everything you mention is consistent with (2) and doesn't corroborate (1).

Furthermore, there is the claim that maps don't exists. If the documents I linked to are authentic (and that is easy to check), that is clearly not the case. It seems the article suffers from recentism and assumes that the behavior of the government in the 1990's (redacting maps to hide the base) automatically extends back to the creation of the base. Bomazi (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made a small change there, hope it's satisfactory.BabyNuke (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the re-written paragraph Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Groom Lake

It is a well documented fact that Area 51 is located at Groom Lake in Nevada. I can site any number of souces to proove this, and it has already been mentioned in the article. What I have done is import all of the key information from the Wikipedia article Groom Lake and make a section for it in this article, eliminating the need to jump back ond forth. I think the seprate article on Groom Lake should be phazed out and this section should replace it, as people looking for Groom Lake are almost always refering to the military facility in Area 51. Is there really a pont to having two different articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesoler01 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Other large Salt Flats have their own article, so why shouldn't Groom Lake? Further, there's information in that article that has absolutely nothing to do with Area 51.BabyNuke (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

~~"Area 51" is the air space over Groom Lake, not the land or any ground installation. It is noted on the pilotage maps used by the pilots flying out of Groom Lake and Nellis AFB.(Andy Loates)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.141.63 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I came here looking for information on the Area 51 conspiracy theories (disclaimer, I don't believe that stuff), and was surprised to find how far down the page it was. Isn't Area 51 mostly famous for its alien conspiracy theories? As in, when someone says "Area 51", aren't UFOs and government cover-ups the first things that pop into your head? I would even say that many people wouldn't know what Area 51 was otherwise (me included). I would therefore have thought that it at least deserves a mention at the end of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.133.31 (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:F22 Area51.jpg

I'm very suprised this photo was released by the Air Force. Although the caption to it on the Nellis AFB website says noting about the plane flying "in the box" near Groom Lake, it's very clear in the background of the photo where it was taken.

Here is the "Official" narrative that goes along with the photo:

An F-22 Raptor from the 27th Fighter Squadron out of Langley Air Force Base, Va., participates in Red Flag 13-3 March 5, 2013, at Nellis AFB, Nev. Red Flag is a realistic combat training exercise involving the air forces of the United States and its allies. During the exercise, aircrews and ground crews train to fight, survive and win together. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Matthew Lancaster)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This photo is less revealing than Google maps satellite view. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing to see there that hasn't been seen before. Changed the caption on the photo since Red Flag doesn't really relate to Area 51, even if they happen to fly near it.BabyNuke (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Facilities section

There is so much speculation here and references to a specific aerial image (a scene that is subject to change; eg the aircraft parked on the ramps aren't always the same). There's no sources listed so I'm assuming it's all own research and stuff is constantly worded as "presumably", "most likely", "they may be". The large number of coordinates isn't very nice to look at either. Some stuff is okay, but a lot of this section could do with a re-write. Will add a clean-up tag, might do it myself over the coming days if I have time.

Edit: I see someone already added an original research tag; didn't even notice that! BabyNuke (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a lot of speculation, as a bomb dump is a bomb dump, a hangar is a hangar.... etc... and a lot of facilities are pretty evident of their use. I analyze aerial photos for a living and the commercial imagery available has a very high spatial resolution. The Feds aren't going to allow anyone on the base (or even near it) for ground truthing or provide a base directory or map of what's where. They barley acknowledge it's existance in the first place, and I'm certain many readers of the article would like to know something more about the base. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still speculation. Yes some things are very obvious, like hangars, runways etc.

But just to name a few: "This facility likely processes incoming shipments and presumably issues security credentials", "a large Civil Engineering area", "possibly some type of base exchange", "and likely some type of medical clinic", "What may be a headquarters building appears to be located...", "A large multi-storied building located just to the south of the presumed headquarters building may be an auxiliary support building containing engineering labs or other facilities.", "There appear to be two separate aircraft maintenance areas", "Generally black-painted military aircraft are flown at night.", "probably being the base communications facility", "linked to what is likely an air defense monitoring facility", "one appearing to be an administrative office complex", "What appears to be the POL area", "what appear to be several storage tanks", "appear to be several high security areas", "it may be a burial and disposal site", "they may be the ARSR-4 Air Route Surveillance Radar", "It is alleged that the facility is operated by civilian government contractor personnel", "appears to be a VORTAC/VOR-DME"

Note how every time you make it clear to the reader from the start that this is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on all counts; in most cases you're probably right. But look at the top of this talk page and especially the links to WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you can't prove it, don't put it on here. Some things are pretty safe to put on here. You can look at a runway and tell its orientation and dimensions. You can tell if something is a hangar or a satellite dish. I'll even go along with things like ammunition storage since they tend to be pretty well defined, too. But you can't just go and assume that a certain building is the admin building, PX or a certain model radar. Even if you're working on reasonable evidence that suggests so.BabyNuke (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that almost everything about this facility is not in the public domain it's not difficult to determine the likely use of various structures given the activities around it. Perhaps you are unaware of what an ARSR-4 Radar looks like. They are commonly used around the United States and it can be stated with a high degree of certainty that's what MAY be used. A VORTAC/VOR-DME site is the same. POL tanks don't vary in appearance very much, and a high fence with poles around it means a secure area with television cameras (no, I can't see the cameras, but that's the primary reason for the poles, is to mount the cameras so they can have a large field of view) is also a common sight in secure facilities. The Air Force has painted aircraft black for night operations for decades. and seeing black painted F-16s parked on a ramp implies they are used for night operations and so on. There are several external websites that really go into wild speculation about the base. I didn't.

I contributed my knowledge and skills to the article to provide information, connecting the dots with the appropriate caveats that provide the reader of the article with information they may find of interest. Clearly we have a disagreement here and I have other things which I can contribute. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see three radomes on a hilltop. Just because the ARSR-4 is a common type of radar used in the US these days does not automatically mean that these radars are of this type. They MAY be ARSR-4s, but they could in reality be anything because we just don't know. And wikipedia is not the place to speculate on it.

The VORTAC / VOR-DME I'll agree is fairly obvious. Some sources even list a frequency (113.9) for this navaid. However, here I have to wonder: why is this airfield related to Area 51 in the first place? First of all: it's 85 miles away. Second of all: Going by aerial footage, the runway is about 2275 x 25 meters, which isn't a whole lot if it's to be used by military jet aircraft as an auxiliary strip. It's much closer to the Tonopah Test Range than Area 51 so it seems more likely to me that it's related to that facility. The reference - ufomind.com - doesn't help much here to support this idea.

Some observations are without a doubt, such as the fuel storage tanks. But so much else is speculation. And that's just not what wikipedia is for. There's a reason someone tagged that section before me already.BabyNuke (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed all of that junk, along with completely useless references. In the first case, it's all original research until a reliable source confirms it. So, out. In the case of the references, conspiracy websites are kind of the opposite of reliable, and linking to some tech support page for a piece of software is... well. — The Potato Hose 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Field

In a moment of pure boredom and curiosity, I looked at Area 51 on Google Earth, and was shocked to see a baseball diamond on the grounds. It is clearly a baseball diamond, most likely used to entertain staff whenever. But anyways, I scanned through the main article and did not see any mention of the baseball field anywhere, maybe I missed it, but if it is not there, I think it is worth adding somewhere in the article that they have this there. If you are looking at the Google Earth image, if you have the new, main runaway on the right (East), then the baseball field is in the North-West corner. Thoughts on if we can add this somewhere? And on a side note, could you imagine how surreal it would be to be playing on that field at Area 51?!Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And in addition to the baseball field, I see a tennis court directly next to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

News: US Acknowledges Area 51 in Connection with U-2 history

Here's a news link that someone can use in this article. If you use it, please delete this section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Area 51 officially acknowledged, mapped in newly released documents; August 15, 2013; CNN.

And another... Jyg (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Area 51 'declassified' in U-2 spy plane history; August 16, 2013; BBC News

While the new document release is notable, the publicity given to it has unfortunately caused the usual amount of Wikirecentism. Area 51 is an open secret, people; it's not like the US government just announced that it possesses a warp drive-capable starship that just returned from Alpha Centauri. I just zapped a bunch of text that 1) unnecessarily gave the document's declassification WP:UNDUE emphasis and 2) was redundant with existing text. Keep your eye out for similar insertions in the coming days. Ylee (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2013

In the History section, there is erroneous information in the Groom Lake paragraph:

"Also, the historical town of Rosswell was located here until evacuation of the US Military.[20]"

Not only is this inaccurate (Roswell is in New Mexico and was never evacuated by the US Military) but reference [20] is only relevant to the sentence following this one and is used twice.

Beatmedic (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External link update

I am the owner of one of the external links, and the address has changed. The link

• Aerial photos from different decades, overlaid with Google Maps interface

should be updated to

• Aerial photos of Area 51 show the base's growth since 1959

Thanks Scienxe (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update! BabyNuke (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

UFO and other conspiracy theories - some additions

The paragraph : "Bruce Burgess. Similarly, the 1996 documentary Dreamland directed by Bruce Burgess included an interview with a 71-year-old mechanical engineer who claimed to be a former employee at Area 51 during the 1950s. His claims included that he had worked on a "flying disc simulator" which had been based on a disc originating from a crashed extraterrestrial craft and was used to train US Pilots. He also claimed to have worked with an extraterrestrial being named "J-Rod" and described as a "telepathic translator". "

which is describing an interview from here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUFAalIXaE

Is talking about and interviewing Bill Uhouse who was interviewed in a later time with disclosure : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ICRApPMzQ and here :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGYNJEA4Ag another mention of Uhouse here :http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/parpar2.htm

Also coming forward about Area-51 is ofc Edgar Fouche (reverse engineering ) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfy_ZpDKNgQ

Another very notable one is "Victor" who was on the art bell show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell#Callers_and_guests who supposedly sneaked out a video of an Alien out of Area 51 http://exopolitics.org/alien-interview-video-hoax-or-real-thing/. the video had a whole documentary analyzing it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ0seaRo3X4

and Victor had a face to face meeting with Art bell in 2008 , discussing the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMavw9lJ0g

Please take into consideration that it is almost impossible to get what is the usual sources for wikipedia. these testimonies almost never get published in mainstream news outlets, but are considred the most notable in the UFO comuunity. thank u 79.183.17.37 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but youtube is not a reliable source, quite apart from any issues of copyright. As we're documenting a subject that attracts attention seekers of all kinds, it's particularly important to ensure that we stick with reliable sources. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

UFO and other conspiracy theories - 2013 testimony

Testimony Is part of this panel : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/politics/panel-convenes-in-washington-to-discuss-aliens.html?_r=0

Anonymous Witness Gives Electrifying Testimony About Area 51, Aliens And Eisenhower.

"CHD (Citizen Hearing on Disclosure) organizer Stephen Bassett announced to the ex-congressional panel that a 15-minute video was about to be shown of a 77-year-old man man, in very bad health, who wanted to take the opportunity to reveal a story of what happened to him while he worked for the CIA under Pres. Dwight Eisenhower in 1958. as he spoke with UFO historian Richard Dolan (seen at left in the picture below). "X" -- as we'll call him here -- recounted how he worked for the CIA on a special project involving the Air Force's Project Blue Book study of UFOs (which ran for about 20 years before ending in 1969).

X: "Well, I was just kind of overwhelmed with all of this. My boss said we were going to be part of the Eisenhower push to find out about these aliens. We went to the Oval Office. President Eisenhower was there, and Nixon."

At this point, X goes on to talk about how Eisenhower was upset when he learned that there was activity going on at a base in Nevada (that would later be renamed as Area 51) that the government allegedly had no jurisdiction over. Eisenhower sent X and his boss to the base to find out what was going on there.

X: "There were different garage door openings and inside they had different saucer crafts. The first one was the Roswell craft -- it was kind of crashed up, but apparently every alien had died except for a couple. Later on we viewed the autopsy film and then the colonel said, 'What we've got in here is we're interviewing a grey alien.'"

X and his superior went back to Washington to meet with Eisenhower and Nixon again.

X: "Also, Hoover was there. We told them about the alien and the whole situation and he was just totally shocked. He appeared for the first time to be worried. Eisenhower said, 'We've got to keep this thing completely secret.'"

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/citizen-hearing-on-disclosure-day-2_n_3184932.html#41_anonymous-witness-gives-electrifying-testimony-about-area-51-aliens-and-eisenhower

109.66.100.76 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Please be specific about exactly what edits you would like included in the article. - MrX 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like The X-Files. Nothing in that statement sounds very believable or interesting. It's like every piece of UFO / Area 51 alien conspiracy confirmed in a single statement.BabyNuke (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Tell me about why they're gu...

68.188.231.164 posted this comment on 17 November 2013 (view all feedback).

Tell me about why they're guarding it and why we the people are so secluded from such a BASE or Airfield...

Any thoughts? Area 51 is part of the Nevada_Test_Site, near Nellis AFB h-sc2017 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Area 51 is in a remote area of Nellis air force base. The article incorrectly states that is in a remote section of Edwards air force base. These air force bases are approximately 200 miles apart and in different states. Kscruzen (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done

Actually the article says it "is a remote detachment of Edwards Air Force Base." - MrX 00:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The base is strictly off limits due to the sensitive nature of the research and development work being conducted there. BabyNuke (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

CIA Tweet "It was us"

In the past days a couple of news articles said that the CIA in an official tweet from their twitter account referred to the UFO sightings mentioned in this article with the words, "It was us." Should this be verified and mentioned in that section of this entry?98.167.162.96 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Source? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/31/cia-ufos-it-was-us_n_6400140.htmlTeeVeeed (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

Missing from article:

• Area 51 (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1519461/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
• 51 (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1629439/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
• Area 51 Confidential (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1900817/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3
• Area 51 (2005) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423828/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
• Area 51 (2015) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2556906/?ref_=fn_al_tt_5
• Area 51 (1999) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2728752/?ref_=fn_al_tt_7
• Area 51 (2002) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0431614/?ref_=fn_al_tt_8
• Showdown at Area 51 (2007) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854667/?ref_=fn_al_tt_9
• Area 51 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2189314/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_10
• Night Visitors (1996) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117178/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_6
• Area 51: The Alien Interview - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404780/?ref_=fn_al_tt_10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Civilian Air codes and flights

I thought this might be relevant to the subject.

On the Janet Airlines article section Fleet it mentions some known flights supposedly to Groom Lake or Tonopah. I researched flight N319BD and noticed that it has a destination code of KTQQ which is a nonexistent airport^[Source].

Might be good to add a section that talks about Janet Airlines or the possible code for this location of KTQQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillySaxon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Eisenhower

Was he denied access? Or rather some proof he wasnt?--123.2.107.113 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415145449/http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/r44.pdf to http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/r44.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130312051621/http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu:80/specoll/mss/99-19.html to http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/specoll/mss/99-19.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Include the mention of the movie "Area 51" in the article

Hello,

I wanted to mention something about the article "Area 51". To complete it, we could mention the movie Area 51 directed by Oren Peli in the chapter 9: "In popular culture"

Yours sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFDF (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

|name = Homey Airport Matthew Jason Smith (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Edit reason: vandilised by someone changing m to rn

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, no sources have been provided. Invalid semi-protected edit request, please try again. JustBerry (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

151.230.71.16 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC) I am an Illuminati Conspiracy Theorist

I have done research and wish to add

thats all

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of US government info as linked from Washington Post

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/08/government-now-admits-theres-area-51/68389/ linked at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/08/the-long-strange-history-of-john-podestas-space-alien-obsession/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_fix << The Government Now Admits There's an 'Area 51'

Newly declassified documents, obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive, appear to for the first time acknowledge the existence of Area 51. Hundreds of pages describe the genesis of the Nevada site that was home to the government's spy plane program for decades. The documents do not, however, mention aliens. The project started humbly. In the pre-drone era about a decade after the end of World War II, President Eisenhower signed off on a project aimed at building a high-altitude, long-range, manned aircraft that could photograph remote targets. Working together, the Air Force and Lockheed developed a craft that could hold the high-resolution cameras required for the images, a craft that became the U-2. Why "U-2"? ... >> -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh what a disappointment --no mention of aliens huh! Who would have thought? Regarding U-2 name The "U" referred to the deliberately vague designation "utility" instead of "R" for "reconnaissance", and the U-1 and U-3 aircraft already existed. Moriori (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2016

Under the section "UFO and other conspiracy theories" regarding Bob Lazar, please change "Sector Four (S-4)" to "Site 4 (S-4)" I have been researching Area 51 and Bob Lazar for many years; S4/S-4 to my knowledge, and any reference I have seen, indicates "Site 4". FosterVS (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources to support your changes. GAB^Hello! 00:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

Add that it is known for ufos and alien like contact 66.189.134.182 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Already done There's a whole section near the end Cannolis (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Safety warning?

Do you think a safety warning should be included that warns that visitors who trespass on Area 51 could be interrogated, arrested or shot by security? 64.121.83.151 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK and WP:NOTHOWTO. However this summarizes the base security policy and includes a reference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130512063545/http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080110area51.html to http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080110area51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy is redunant

By that, I mean this line, "Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." under UFO and other conspiracy theories. The line right before that states how the "Cheshire Strip" is supposedly camouflaged, and can only be revealed when wet. Might I suggest the removal of this line? 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:44CF:6F91:C31A:71AD (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is redundant? Moriori (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Moriori It's obvious the airstrip wouldn't be visible as is the airstrips at Area 51, or any other air strip. Saying "However, the Chesire Airstrip is not visible in public satellites imagery at Area 51, but not Papoose Lake" is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Well of course it's not going to appear to satellites if it is supposedly "camoflauged". The odds of a satellite that is taking photographs being over the Nevada desert when the Chesire Strip would be supposedly visible is very, very slim. 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:3579:A016:666E:C69 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The section in question is UFO and other conspiracy theories and the text reads: "Many of the hypotheses concern underground facilities at Groom or at Papoose Lake (also known as "S-4 location"), 8.5 miles (13.7 km) south, and include claims of a transcontinental underground railroad system, a disappearing airstrip (nicknamed the "Cheshire Airstrip", after Lewis Carroll's Cheshire cat) which briefly appears when water is sprayed onto its camouflaged asphalt,[61] and engineering based on alien technology. Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." All of this is cited to an archive of something called "www.serve.com" that appears to be someone's private musings about UFOs - and not a WP:RS so it should probably be pruned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Areq 51

Don't forget to add in pop culture that Groom Lake is the starting point in The Call of Duty Zombies map Moon, and Area 51 is the map Ascension — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gage9799 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Illegal photos

US law is hardly my "lay opinion". You cannot photograph defense installations, or any part thereof without permission from the relevant authorities. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is the text of the cited law, not an opinion. It's your opinion that these pictures run afoul of it. Cite reliable interpretations of that law that show that displaying these pictures is illegal. You can see these kinds of pictures on a number of American sites (news sites, stock photo collections, etc.), so I'm disinclined to agree with your interpretation. --Xanzzibar (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Really? Your defense is "Well, I don't think it's illegal! *sticks out tongue*". I'd rather we simply made an effort to comply with US law instead of finding out the hard way one day. Perhaps the stock photo sites and news sites are also violating the law. I'll use an example with copyright violations, since it's the only form of illegal content that people here can be bothered to care about: when we see a copyright violation, do we just leave it there until someone files a DCMA notice because it's only our "opinion" that it's a copyright violation—or do we do the decent thing and take it down? Regardless, I decided last year that I will not participate in any website that flagrantly hosts illegal content. I left Commons for that reason, I would not want to leave Wikipedia for that reason too. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto does not sound like "everything" to me. This is a question where Wikilegal's input is necessary, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no valid reason for removing a photograph of a sign saying "photography is prohibited" immediately after the words "beyond this point". Such images have been broadcast on television programs and exist all over the internet. Although it is illegal to photograph some US military facilities ("certain vital military and naval installations") without permission, Wikipedia didn't take this photograph, so our concern should be limited to copyright status, as others have said. - MrX 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Somebody else breaking the law is not an excuse for us to do it. There are thousands of murderers, but that does not make it okay for me to go out and kill someone. And it certainly does not say "beyond this point", just that photography is prohibited, period. But whatever, I am done with this illegal website. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not made a convincing argument that displaying the image is breaking in law. It would be shame if you quit editing Wikipedia because of this.- MrX 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(Cross posting this from VPP as it is relevant enough to do so.) The US Government knows that they can't stop people from taking images with a telephoto lens or just outside the perimeter. And they don't try. However, photos from inside the perimeter would be considered classified information and uploading them on here would cause an enormous amount of trouble for Wikimedia as they are based in the US. Seeing as the photo is question was taking outside the perimeter (and therefore outside the classified zone) it shouldn't be a problem. --Majora (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference, in law, between taking a photograph and publishing a photograph. You are quite correct, Jakec, murder is against the law; publishing an image of the murder isn't necessarily so, if it is in the public interest. Such determinations are left in the hands of the Justice system. So, taking photos of "Area 51" is forbidden, that does not necessarily mean publishing them is. As far as that goes, the law defaults in favour of the publisher until such time as a complaint is made or request to have the image removed is made. That is my understanding of the law, both here in the UK and in the US. Obviously if I am wrong, feel free to say so!Loates Jr (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Andy Loates/UK

That law says nothing about storing, transmitting, or displaying such pictures, even if the act of taking them was illegal.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Area 51 (film)

Maybe put the crap Area 51 (film) in it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.121.212 (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That film is already mentioned in the hatnote. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608222535/http://www.airfieldsdatabase.com/WW2/WW2%20R27e%20ID-NH.htm to http://www.airfieldsdatabase.com/WW2/WW2%20R27e%20ID-NH.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jun-04-Tue-2002/news/18894771.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/77F9FB6C3552927E88256D05007AE266/%24file/0016378.pdf?openelement
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-21-Sun-2006/news/7488359.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216102228/http://ndep.nv.gov/boff/nts-use.jpg to http://ndep.nv.gov/boff/nts-use.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425161328/http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/Traveler_Info/Maps/Nevada%20Aviaton%202013-2014%20Front.pdf to http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/Traveler_Info/Maps/Nevada%20Aviaton%202013-2014%20Front.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910211437/http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/NV.pdf to http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/NV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area 51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120530091951/http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/s4sportmodel.htm to http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/s4sportmodel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Area 51 fictionalized as Area 69 in the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Jared1799 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mental health institution

What are peoples thoughts about citing some articles saying that it is a mental health institution? 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:191C:7064:FE4D:D0A3 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If they're reliable and don't fall foul of fringe theory then you can have a go, but be prepared for WP:BRD regardless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a line in the topic 'Popular Culture'

- In the game 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' there is a mission called Black Project in which you have to enter Area 69 (which refers/points to Area 51) to steal a project. You actually have to steal a keycard deep inside the base and once inside it is heavily armed and you will come across a few laboratories (which points to testing ″subjects″).

Faex06 (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That's not a mention of Area 51. And even if it did say Area 51, and not Area 69, it would be a trivial mention which doesn't get to go in. Fish+Karate 12:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

- I understand, later I saw the mentioning of the rule that specifically said not to mention GTA SA, which I didn't saw before posting this. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faex06 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Archimedes' curve link points to the wrong article

The link from the text "Archimedes' curve" points to Archimedes' screw (the helical pump) rather than to Archimedean spiral (the arithmetic curve). Tim Leonard (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done (text and link changed to Archimedean spiral by someone) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Area52

sipping my bean juice, can we talk about the fact that the name of the base is wrong, that's a psyop, it's technically area 52, thanks Baltimoresigintard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your claim isn't supported by the article - Tonopah Test Range seems to be known as Area 52. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Welcome to the English Wikipedia, please note that the only language allowed here is English, and that talk pages are for discussions towards improving the article. Xerxes1337 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Update photo

Can we update the photo of the operational area with a google earth satellite image? Zeilert (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

ISSUE: Regarding the image with the following caption: 'Area 51 border and warning sign stating that "photography is prohibited" and that "use of deadly force is authorized" under the terms of the 1950 McCarran Internal Security Act'

1) The sign displayed in the image does not state that "use of deadly force is authorized".

2) Also, neither the sign in the image nor the article itself refer to the 1950 McCarren Internal Security Act.

There thus seems to be no basis for these statements, neither in the image nor in the article itself.

REQUESTED ACTION: Please remove the following text from the caption: 'and that "use of deadly force is authorized" under the terms of the 1950 McCarran Internal Security Act'

DESIRED OUTCOME: The resulting caption would be: 'Area 51 border and warning sign stating that "photography is prohibited"' 213.119.9.90 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of the McCarren Internal Security Act, but retained "use of deadly force is authorized" because that is clearly written on the bottom right hand corner of the sign. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: by Moriori above, as stated "use of deadly force authorized" is barely legible on the bottom right hand corner of the sign in red text. Danski454 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Area 51 raid

We should create an section discussing the idea of area 51 raid on September 20 2019, and then follow up on the vents that occure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this; the upcoming "event" has had a decent amount of media coverage ([2], [3], [4], [5] etc.), so sourcing won't be a major problem. I am unsure where exactly to add it though. Geolodus (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Area_51_in_popular_culture. Once there was a popular culture section. It grew fat with items that were deemed culturally earth shattering at the time but were forgotten within a year. The section apparently forked to its own article, it eventually merged back, but it was eventually removed as a cruft magnet. The “Area 51 raid” is basically just people on Facebook clicking on a button. The WaPo calls it “a joke event”. If there was actually a real raid (unlikely), then we could add something in the History section. But for the moment, List of Internet phenomena is a better target for this subject. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

From the WaPo source : "Most people discussing the raid, including various news outlets that have written about the event, recognize that it’s not intended to be taken seriously. ".

I think this is not really news about Area51, it's just news about social media sillyness. It's a game people are playing that just happens to involve Area51. ApLundell (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's people having fun with no intention of doing anything related to this topic. What a forum chats about has no encyclopedic relevance and the section should be removed. Some substantive text can be added when a thousand people actually do something at Area 51. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been split off into a separate article: Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Grammar correction

Please correct the sentence "The HAVE DOUGHNUT tests showed was the skill of the man in the cockpit that made the difference"

Suggested correction: "The HAVE DOUGHNUT tests showed that the skill of the man in the cockpit was what made the difference" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.49.83 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. aboideau^talk 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

History of the Area 51 and ET subject

Who first claimed a connection between these two subjects, Bob Lazar? I realize he claimed what he saw was at Papoose and not Groom, just that his aircraft flight went to Groom before getting on a bus to the other location. Where is the contemporaneous public record (newspapers, tabloids, etc) of such claimed activities at this part of the Nevada Test Site (generally speaking) prior to Bob Lazar? -Reticuli 2605:A000:1301:A37F:4DB9:BDF4:71D6:543 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

2A02:C7F:44A9:C700:C9BC:92E7:3279:24AF (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Area 51 is in fact a fake resors and people are made to believe that it isn't

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 17:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

References to OXCART in the text should link to the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 Furthermore, the quotation referring to OXCART as "disc-shaped" should include the notation "(sic)", since this is clearly not the case. OXCART was a typically shaped supersonic aircraft of the time, similar in shape to the better-known SR-71 Blackbird. Rsbrux (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Lockheed A-12 is already linked prominently in the section in reference to OXCART; we don't generally repeat links per MOS:DUPLINK. A find for "disc-shaped" revealed no matches. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Under section "Security", it should read "camo dudes" not "cammo dudes". "camo" is short for camouflage. TheArea51Rider (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It does seem like a misspelling, but both sources spell it "cammo dudes," so we'll have to stick with that. aboideau^talk 22:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Under section "Security" it reads: "Signage around the base perimeter advises that deadly force is authorized against trespassers." The signage around the base perimeter no longer reads "deadly force is authorized". The signs were changed at some point between 2013 and 2014, the bottom section with "Deadly Force is Authorized" was removed. TheArea51Rider (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP: V, is there a WP:RS for this?-LuckyLouie (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Closing as  Not done per lack of a source. If you get one, please feel free to add a comment here and reopen the request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Under section Geography/Area 51 it states "Groom Lake Road descends eastward to the floor of the Tikaboo Valley, passing the dirt-road entrances to several small ranches, before converging with State Route 375, the "Extraterrestrial Highway",[8] south of Rachel." There are some errors in that sentence: 1) It should state "converging with State Route 375, the "Extraterrestrial Highway",[8] east of Rachel. Groom Lake Road converges with Highway 375 EAST of Rachel, NV 2) It should state "Groom Lake Road descends north-eastward to the floor of the Tikaboo Valley" Groom Lake Road runs northeast from Area 51, to where it converges with Highway 375. TheArea51Rider (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit too subjective. According to maps, some portions of both these roads run north and some portions run east. The existing text is very straighforward, understandable, and sourced to the New York Times. Your suggested changes are not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A couple of minor text corrections.

In the "D-21 Tagboard" section, 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence, there appears to be a typo: It should be "second D-21 flight" (not D-12, which is inconsistent with the rest of the text).

Area 51 has aliens. The FBI doesn’t want us to know about it... shhhhhh

In the "Foreign Technology Evaluation" section, 4th paragraph, last section, the commas around "itself" are not needed grammatically. It just makes the sentence choppy. Peter T000 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

airfield elevation incorrect

elevation should be 4400ft not 4400m

Now corrected Thx811 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666himself (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I would like a little more information on conspiracy theories on Area 51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinesTu (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@HinesTu: this article is about the military base, but that is not to say information about some of the various conspiracy theories you may be looking for is not available. Just look up Conspiracy theory → List of conspiracy theories → UFO conspiracy theories. Additionally, at the bottom of the page, is a "conspiracy theories" template with additional information on the subject. - wolf 17:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

IATA code

I see the article lists the IATA code as "XTA", yet the IATA itself does not seem to know anything about that (see https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=XTA) M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@M16A3NoRecoilHax: The editor who added the IATA code cited this website in their edit summary. Not sure how reliable it is. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Saucy: In my experience the data on opennav.com is *for the most part* accurate, but often lacking, especially when dealing with nav data related to military facilities. To me it is more aimed at flight simmers than actual real world aviation. So I wouldn't entirely discount it as a source in general, but when faced with something like this case here, where information about the airport is spotty at best and a lot of speculation is often involved, I would personally trust the IATA website over opennav.com any day of the week when a conflict arises between the two such as in this case here. --M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

1974 Skylab photography

The section of the article titled "1974 Skylab photography" references a memo to Director of Central Intelligence William Colby. Colby's notes are quoted as saying, "[Secretary of State Rusk] did raise it—said State Dept. people felt strongly." However, on page 1 of the memo [6], in the reference to "Secretary Rusk", the letter "k" is struck out and the letter "h" is handwritten above it, making it "Secretary Rush". Dean Rusk was not Secretary of State or in government at all at the time. I believe this may be a reference to Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Under 'History', it says the name Area 51 may be derived from the AEC. Maybe to support that, it can be added that Area 51 is mentioned in the "Compilation of local fallout data from test detonations 1945-1962", prepared for the Defense Nuclear Agency in 1979: Under 'Operation Storax - Bandicoot', it was reported on 19th October 1962 that: "No radiation was detected off-site at Area 51, Indian Springs and Pahrump"

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5009084-compilation-local-fallout-data-from-test-detonations-extracted-from-dasa-volume-continental-us-tests Justforgroups (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The quote you cite is not within the page you linked to. If there a document that must be further accessed via that page, it doesn't appear readily available. - wolf 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)