Re: Wikileaking on Area 51

On Dec 22, 8:25�pm, "m...@sushi.com" <m...@sushi.com> wrote:


Yeah, a bit hypocritical to snoop around the base and then rant about
wiki leaks, though technically snooping around the base is exercising
your constitutional rights. It is up to the base to safeguard the
secrets. So true hypocrisy would require the webmaster to publish a
classified document. Photography is not a crime, though a great deal
of the government doesn't agree.


Well, actually some photography IS a crime.  See 18 USC 795 - Sec.
795.  You just can't take pictures of any old military installation.
I don't know if that section of the US code has been tested in court,
but then can, if they want, arrest for it.  You may not like it (and I
don't) but the law is on the books.  Hence the sign on Groom Lake
Road.

Consider me on the record that wikileaks is a good thing. I just wish
they didn't redact all the aircraft tail numbers. I learned quite a
bit about the IEDs they built. I don't recall if I posted it here, but
on ATS I started a thread about a facility in Arizona that was using
the same wireless telephones as the bad guys use to set off the IEDs.
It is a phone that is not legal in the US since it operates in
military frequencies.


I concur about the leakage.  Much bad behavior has been exposed, and
it embarrasses me as a US citizen.  Doesn't surprise me though.

Since you sent me to the forum, this is the stupidest post I noted:http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/35078.html


Yes, there's a lot of holier than thou pontificating about the need
for secrecy on DLR, as long as it's what THEY deem as acceptable.
Again, the existence of DLR exposes a secret defense facility to the
world and compromises its operation.  Exaggeration, you say?  Well
take for example that triangular tower.  The Russian satellites
observing Groom would see only an overhead view or a highly oblique
one.  Can't tell a lot from that.  But Russian image analysts could
hop on DLR and get an excellent side view of the facility (many
images, in fact), and thus figure out the antenna array formation.
And that would speak to exactly what it is (and I'm not saying).  So
the DLR pics could easily be helping a foreign adversary, saving their
operatives a trip to Tikaboo.  Oh wait, do you think they know about
Tikaboo?  Well they do now.  Everything they need to know about it and
how to get there is on DLR.

Personally I have no problem with this.  I like things as open as
possible.  Sunlight is a marvelous disinfectant.  But I don't cotton
to a website metaphorically passing out free cigarettes and telling
you not to smoke.

It seems everyone BUT the DLR team leaves trash on Tikaboo. If you
look at the photos of the new hangar, the berm really doesn't hide
much. If you know anything about how the base operates, they don't
give a rats ass if someone is on Tikaboo. I've been up there when they
did a test. It's dark, you can't see anything. You wouldn't be able to
see anything with night vision. As you magnify the image, the light
received goes down. Twice the magnification means one quarter the
light. By the time you could focus on a plane, the NV would be
worthless. Most surveillance is done from three miles. I'm not sure
where that magic number come from, but if you study enough UAV images,
that is where they do it. At 26 miles, NV observation is a pipe dream,
or it would require a huge aperture telescope. The USSR crumbled upon
its own ineptness and corruption. Reagan didn't make it fail. You
would have a hard time naming any military program under Reagan that
actually worked. Yeah, he built the B1B, but that was a Carter era
program. In fact, stealth started under Carter. Brilliant pebbles? Is
that a breakfast cereal?


I agree with you about the relative harmlessness of Tikaboo.  These
people who worry about another land grab just don't understand the
dynamics.  I can't recall the exact number, but a satellite looks down
through only the equivalent of 5 or 6 miles of atmosphere.  26 miles
is crazy.